GOP Christie Wins NJ [Archive] - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

NJ Stinks

11-03-2009, 11:03 PM

Let me be the first to welcome New Jersey and njstinks to Red State America.:D

Well, I'll be the first admit Christie paid $4.20 in NJ! :lol:

Honestly, while I was hoping Corzine would win it, it's understandable why he didn't. Unemployment is running around 10% and Corzine wasn't even offering solutions. Foreclosures are higher than ever in just about all neighborhoods around the state. And, frankly, Corzine lacks appeal and offered no real hope for a better tomorrow. If you can't at least give people hope for a better tomorrow, maybe you shouldn't be in politics.

Having said all that, the worst thing is that conservatives have every right to gloat. If Obama's stimulus plan was working even a little in NJ, Corzine could have rode that horse to victory tonight. But no. Corzine had to carry the day on his own. He couldn't do it and now we're back to cutting services, more unemployment when state workers get the axe, and cutting the income taxes of individuals who don't need the extra money to get by.

IMO, if the Dems learned anything tonight it should be this: Cut out the bullshit. If you are going to do anything (OK a stimulus package, healthcare reform, raise taxes to reduce the national debt or help pay for healthcare reform, etc.), don't be making the effective date in 2011, 2013, or later. Most people need to see change now for crying out loud. :mad:

Tom

11-03-2009, 11:08 PM

All the King's horses
and all the King's men,
including Humpty dumpty Biden,
Couldn't put Corzine in office again.

bigmack

11-03-2009, 11:21 PM

Well, I'll be the first admit Christie paid $4.20 in NJ!
Roll over to MSNBC, they're barely covering the Christie win. Rachel Maddow is busy covering the same sex mandate in Maine. First things first for Rachel. MSNBC executives stand down.

ArlJim78

11-03-2009, 11:29 PM

Obama has the midas touch.
The Olympics
Deeds
Corzine

lets hope he stumps hard next year for Dodd and Reid.

mostpost

11-03-2009, 11:34 PM

Let me be the first to welcome New Jersey and njstinks to Red State America.:D
Two Democratic Senators; Eight out of thirteen Democratic representatives; six out of ten Democratic state senators; and twelve out of nineteen Democratic state assemblymen. That's quite a red state. :lol: :lol: :lol:

mostpost

11-03-2009, 11:40 PM

Well, I'll be the first admit Christie paid $4.20 in NJ! :lol:

Honestly, while I was hoping Corzine would win it, it's understandable why he didn't. Unemployment is running around 10% and Corzine wasn't even offering solutions. Foreclosures are higher than ever in just about all neighborhoods around the state. And, frankly, Corzine lacks appeal and offered no real hope for a better tomorrow. If you can't at least give people hope for a better tomorrow, maybe you shouldn't be in politics.

Having said all that, the worst thing is that conservatives have every right to gloat. If Obama's stimulus plan was working even a little in NJ, Corzine could have rode that horse to victory tonight. But no. Corzine had to carry the day on his own. He couldn't do it and now we're back to cutting services, more unemployment when state workers get the axe, and cutting the income taxes of individuals who don't need the extra money to get by.

IMO, if the Dems learned anything tonight it should be this: Cut out the bullshit. If you are going to do anything (OK a stimulus package, healthcare reform, raise taxes to reduce the national debt or help pay for healthcare reform, etc.), don't be making the effective date in 2011, 2013, or later. Most people need to see change now for crying out loud. :mad:
:ThmbUp: on the last paragraph. And stop telling me you can do it all just by raising taxes on the rich. I am willing to pay my share, as long as others (who have more than me) pay their share. If the cause is righteous (Healthcare, reducing the debt, stimulating the economy) I will support it. Gladly>

bigmack

11-03-2009, 11:58 PM

I am willing to pay my share, as long as others (who have more than me) pay their share. If the cause is righteous (Healthcare, reducing the debt, stimulating the economy) I will support it. Gladly>
Isn't that what it's all about. Being/feeling righteous? How 'bout we have an opt-out for wanting to be righteous. The fact of the matter is that some of us have been paying way over what others have been paying and it JUST DOESN'T MATTER. Those in need never diminish in numbers.

You want to be a hero and save everyone that needs help - Be my guest. Just don't force me & others to do it with you. At some point it's a losing battle.

Stimulating the economy doesn't mean throwing loot on the ground. That's a Neanderthal approach.

mostpost

11-04-2009, 12:41 AM

Isn't that what it's all about. Being/feeling righteous? How 'bout we have an opt-out for wanting to be righteous. The fact of the matter is that some of us have been paying way over what others have been paying and it JUST DOESN'T MATTER. Those in need never diminish in numbers.

You want to be a hero and save everyone that needs help - Be my guest. Just don't force me & others to do it with you. At some point it's a losing battle.

Stimulating the economy doesn't mean throwing loot on the ground. That's a Neanderthal approach.
I don't know your financial situation. Your profile says "entrepreneur."
That could mean you run a hot dog cart in downtown Coronado, or it could mean you run a business with 100 + employees. Given your opinions here I suspect it is closer to the latter than the former.
Are you paying way over what others are paying? What if those others don't have anything to pay? Why do the numbers of those in need never diminish?
I know that some people say that it is because those people are somehow morally flawed. (Not saying you) The reason is all the power has now been concentrated in the hands of a few.
Starting with Reagan, a concerted effort has been made to take power away from the working people of this country. This has been done through Union busting, through outsourcing to foreign countries, and through cutbacks in salaries and benefits. All this to maximize profits while ignoring the needs of
those who made profits possible.
And what do we have as a result of these policies. We have a widening gap between the Rich and the middle class. We have a shrinking middle class. We have a growing and ever poorer "POOR" class. As a result of this we have a growing need to provide for those people.
As a result of the policies which you are so in love with, we have made it impossible for them to provide for themselves. There are no jobs. The jobs there are do not pay enough. And if it were not for the stimulus, the situation would be much worse.
AND BILL OWENS BEAT THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY CANDIDATE IN NY 23 WHICH HASN'T HAD A DEMOCRATIC REP SINCE BOXCAR WASN'T GRUMPY :lol:

NJ Stinks

11-04-2009, 12:50 AM

And stop telling me you can do it all just by raising taxes on the rich. I am willing to pay my share, as long as others (who have more than me) pay their share. If the cause is righteous (Healthcare, reducing the debt, stimulating the economy) I will support it. Gladly>

I feel the same way, Mostpost. I'm not rich but I'm not poor either. And I'm definitely willing and able to pay more in the taxes than currently being asked by my country.

Posters here seem to think I want them to pay my way. I don't want or need that. What I want is for all of us to pay our fair share today. I have no interest in passing on the debts of today to tomorrow's Americans so I can live a little higher off the hog today. What kind of legacy is that?

Obviously, we can't save every American, Bigmack. But maybe we can provide them decent medical attention without screwing ourselves in the process. Other countries manage to do it. Why can't we, I ask myself.

bigmack

11-04-2009, 12:55 AM

We have a widening gap between the Rich and the middle class. We have a shrinking middle class. We have a growing and ever poorer "POOR" class. As a result of this we have a growing need to provide for those people.
As a result of the policies which you are so in love with, we have made it impossible for them to provide for themselves. There are no jobs. The jobs there are do not pay enough. And if it were not for the stimulus, the situation would be much worse.
A well formed opinion from someone who has worked for The Feds.

Out here in The Real World jobs are most times created by someone/people who have a vision within the marketplace and allows the marketplace to decide its viability. You roll in some Dreamstate where jobs just appear and maintain themselves as if they're the right of someone to have.

Jobs exist on the livelihood & acumen of businesses who rely on the gauge of the marketplace to define the level of their longevity.

If I hire Bill tomorrow am I obliged to maintain his employment irrespective of my growth/sales?

From what I've seen of your position, you've been institutionalized by your Fed paycheck. Come out from behind your curtain. It's a whole other world.

mostpost

11-04-2009, 01:28 AM

A well formed opinion from someone who has worked for The Feds.

Out here in The Real World jobs are most times created by someone/people who have a vision within the marketplace and allows the marketplace to decide its viability. You roll in some Dreamstate where jobs just appear and maintain themselves as if they're the right of someone to have.

Jobs exist on the livelihood & acumen of businesses who rely on the gauge of the marketplace to define the level of their longevity.

If I hire Bill tomorrow am I obliged to maintain his employment irrespective of my growth/sales?

From what I've seen of your position, you've been institutionalized by your Fed paycheck. Come out from behind your curtain. It's a whole other world.
Before I went to work for the USPS, I worked for 18 years in the private sector. I worked for an electronics firm, I worked for an insurance company, and I worked for a company in the building trades industry. My father was a salesman most of his life, but he did buy and run a grocery store in our hometown for several years. I am aware of the travails of running a business.
I know that a business can fail due to circumstances that are not in the control of the owner.
"Our" grocery store failed because of changing times and unforeseen circumstances. It was a neighborhood store at a time when Supermarkets were coming into full bloom. The summer after we purchased it the street (Cermak Road) was widened to four lanes taking away our parking.
To say nothing of the long summer of construction and sewer replacement directly in front of our door.
In my opinion there is not a "Right" to be a successful businessman. If you can do it because of your "acumen"; if you can do it while treating your employees justly, more power to you.

Lastly, I worked every bit as hard during my tenure at the PO as I did in any of my "Real World" jobs. In my "Real World" jobs my starting times never varied from midnight to 4 am to 10 am and back to 4 am in a single week. In my "Real World" jobs, I never had to walk with a thirty pound bag, over five miles up and down hundreds of steps, in 90 degree heat or below zero temperatures, in freezing rain or blinding snow. In my "Real World" jobs I never had to wrestle sixty pound mail bags, or stand and sort mail for hours at a time. In my "Real World jobs I never had to face unending lines and unreasonable customers as I did when I was a window clerk.
I'll take the "Real World" any day. Becaude. my friend, you don't know what you are talking about.

newtothegame

11-04-2009, 01:45 AM

I feel the same way, Mostpost. I'm not rich but I'm not poor either. And I'm definitely willing and able to pay more in the taxes than currently being asked by my country.

Posters here seem to think I want them to pay my way. I don't want or need that. What I want is for all of us to pay our fair share today. I have no interest in passing on the debts of today to tomorrow's Americans so I can live a little higher off the hog today. What kind of legacy is that?

Obviously, we can't save every American, Bigmack. But maybe we can provide them decent medical attention without screwing ourselves in the process. Other countries manage to do it. Why can't we, I ask myself.

NJ, you and mosty keep talking the same rhetoric to yourselves and sooner or later you guys will believe it. Let me ask a question...you both refer to the wealthy paying their fair share. Define that for me! What is their fair share? Is it 30%, 10%, or is it a dollar amount? Unless you are attempting to say that a certain class that makes over and above a certain amount have a larger tax burden then those beneath them. What would be the incentive for those people to start jobs? Create business? Actually drive the economy? Cause I promise you it is NOT the federal programs which are driving the economy. Amtrak, the USPS, are just examples of the fine running government programs. So whats your answer??? How do you propose to tax those that have "more"?
Most referred to the ever shrinking middle class and the poor class increasing in size. Want to guess why this is???? Well its obvious that if the wealthy class isnt the one shrinking...(heres a clue)....its THE MIDDLE CLASS shrinking. The government run programs are putting the middle class in the poor house.
Now you and most both say that you have "extra" and are willing to pay more. Lets be honest here, show us your returned checks , money orders, etc etc to the IRS where you said..."nahh, I would prefer you put this "extra" into the general fund to help the impoverished." Its easy to talk it when it does NOT affect you. And if you have returned your tax refunds, then I applaud you.
But there is one other thing you are missing here. Whats the point of giving to the impoverished? YOU CAN NOT AND WILL NOT SHRINK THAT CLASS. Do you not realize the government NEEDS those people right where they are??? say I am foolish if you like, but the fact remains that almost all government spending would cease without a tax base. There would be no real need for these huge taxes without the impoverished class. States would be able to take care of their own infrastructure for the most part. In essence, most of congress would be cutting their own throats. How else could they fund studies for gay drinkers in argentina??? They need an ever increasing tax base for that income. So to increase the tax base means to make more people impoverished through raising of taxes. This is a vicious cycle in which more and more people will become the "poor". But, the income is drying up....just look at social security. Governemtn programs will soon be put on priority list of not already to try and hold more and more of that money hostage as the income continues to shrink. Keep taxing the wealthier in this country....:bang:

bigmack

11-04-2009, 02:02 AM

Obviously, we can't save every American, Bigmack. But maybe we can provide them decent medical attention without screwing ourselves in the process. Other countries manage to do it. Why can't we, I ask myself.
Alrighty. I'll get behind insuring anyone who needs bonafide health care if they can't afford it. They gotta prove eligibility, lack of funds, need for care, etc...

Take the dough laying around from the Stimulus Package to pay for it for the next ___ years. (I heard that somewhere)

Now I'm just as righteous as you and we solved the main problem you want to solve without the complexity or VAST expense of your currently backed plan.

Tom

11-04-2009, 07:55 AM

As soon as we get those nutritional signs on every vending machine, things will improve.

ddog

11-04-2009, 11:39 AM

Since NJ really didn't seem about HC much at all, it's comical to see the lumps rolling around in the same ol same ol.

Anyway, here's a few things Christy said:

"I will recoup wasted taxpayer dollars by appointing a Special Prosecutor to conduct a thorough audit of government programs and will seek reimbursement of misspent funds until our State Auditor is in place."

"I will fight pension abuse, starting with the removal of more than 300 political appointees who are a part of the pension system by virtue of being paid to attend monthly meetings of boards and commissions of which they are members."

"I will eliminate wasteful and inappropriate state purchases by appointing a “Taxpayer Advocate” in the Division of Purchase and Property to audit each and every government purchase order until our State Auditor is in place. No more $600 cellphones for state employees."

Let's give him 2 years to implement and then a check-up(HC :D ) to see what has actually been done.

How's about a prediction, one dudes 600Buck cell is another dudes "private business man's" profit and a few show jobs.

The vote against one and then the others won't get it.

Someday the lumps will be beaten into puddles maybe then you or your kids may get that fact.

mostpost

11-04-2009, 12:17 PM

NJ, you and mosty keep talking the same rhetoric to yourselves and sooner or later you guys will believe it.
I don't want to speak for NJ, but if I didn't believe what I say, Why would I say it?

Let me ask a question...you both refer to the wealthy paying their fair share. Define that for me! What is their fair share? Is it 30%, 10%, or is it a dollar amount?
A fair share is different for each person depending on income and circumstances. If I make a million dollars, 50% is not an unfair tax burden because I still have half a million dollars left to provide for my family; to buy them food and housing, to provide medical care, even to provide luxuries. if you make $20,000, 10% is an unfair tax burden, because you are left with insufficient money to care for your family...or even yourself.

Unless you are attempting to say that a certain class that makes over and above a certain amount have a larger tax burden then those beneath them
The very rich should have a larger tax burden than the rich; the rich should have a larger tax burden than the well to do; the well to do should have a larger tax burden than the middle class; the middle class should have a larger tax burden than the poor.

What would be the incentive for those people to start jobs? Create business? Actually drive the economy?
We actually did quite well with higher tax rates. Plenty of people started and ran successful businesses when the top tax rates were 70% and higher. While I understand that there were othe factors involved, the economy did quite well after Clinton raised taxes and not so well after Bush lowered them.

Cause I promise you it is NOT the federal programs which are driving the economy. Amtrak, the USPS, are just examples of the fine running government programs.
OK, there's sarcasm there, isn't there? Leaving aside how efficiently those programs are run, they do indeed help to drive the economy. USPS alone employs over 600,000 people. Without those jobs those people would not be buying the products you and Bigmack are selling.

Now you and most both say that you have "extra" and are willing to pay more. Lets be honest here, show us your returned checks , money orders, etc etc to the IRS where you said..."nahh, I would prefer you put this "extra" into the general fund to help the impoverished." Its easy to talk it when it does NOT affect you
That is a specious argument. We both said we would be willing to pay more. We both said, we expect those who are better off than we are to also pay more. There is no way to determine who and how much is being returned to the Federal Government. There is a way to determine what rates are.

But there is one other thing you are missing here. Whats the point of giving to the impoverished? YOU CAN NOT AND WILL NOT SHRINK THAT CLASS. Do you not realize the government NEEDS those people right where they are??? say I am foolish if you like, but the fact remains that almost all government spending would cease without a tax base. There would be no real need for these huge taxes without the impoverished
This is an interesting theory. No, not interesting.....BIZARRE. What you seem to be saying is the government has a vested interest in keeping a segment of the population impoverished so that they can subsidize their living standards.
You seem to be saying that the reason they do this is so they can raise taxes on others in order to pay for this. And of course the government does this just because they love taxes, especially if they are Democrats. You completely ignore the fact that the revenues produced are never sufficient to pay for these programs.

They need an ever increasing tax base for that income. So to increase the tax base means to make more people impoverished through raising of taxes.
You totally defy logic here. You increase the tax base by decreasing the amount of money available to be taxed? Why does that seem wrong to me.
Is it not more logical to think that the government (AND, IN FACT, EVERYBODY) would want there to be less poor people. Less poor people means more people earning more money, means more consumers, means more entrepreneurs selling more products, means a larger tax base.

Tom

11-04-2009, 12:41 PM

Greyfox

11-04-2009, 12:59 PM

I'll take the "Real World" any day.

Actions speak louder than words.
The fact is you opted to stay with the Post Office in spite of the hardships you report. The fact is you didn't take the "Real World" when you had a chance to.

mostpost

11-04-2009, 01:32 PM

mostpost

11-04-2009, 02:04 PM

What about the fact that I worked HARDER to get that million?
You totally fail to address why people make more money. If I can only expect to keep half, where is my incentive to work hard and be productive?
How about the guy who makes less has to show up and do MORE WORK at some kind of publkic work house? Maybe he works nights and weekends and then he gets to feed his own damn family?
Public work house? Is this Dickensian England. And aren't you the one who is against government intervention?
You worked harder? Prove it. I doubt if you worked any harder than the guy who is washing dishes eight hours a day in a restaurant, or the woman working at McDonald's for minimum wage. I doubt if you even work harder than the guys at your factory who build the duck blinds. What is there about you and what you do that makes you that much more valuable?
And why should a man have to work more than one basic job to feed his family. Teddy Roosevelt famously said, (Paraphrasing) "A man should earn enough at A job, that he is able to feed his family, to provide decent housing for them, to provide for the education of his children, to provide for their necessary health care, to save for his retirement, and to have extra for a reasonable amount of recreation and enjoyment."
You, on the other hand, think a man should have to work 60 or 70 hours a week just to feed his "Own damn family". And why should he do this? So that you can have a million dollars instead of $950,000. Greed....one of the seven deadly sins.

Show Me the Wire

11-04-2009, 02:12 PM

Public work house? Is this Dickensian England. And aren't you the one who is against government intervention?
You worked harder? Prove it. I doubt if you worked any harder than the guy who is washing dishes eight hours a day in a restaurant, or the woman working at McDonald's for minimum wage. I doubt if you even work harder than the guys at your factory who build the duck blinds. What is there about you and what you do that makes you that much more valuable?
And why should a man have to work more than one basic job to feed his family. Teddy Roosevelt famously said, (Paraphrasing) "A man should earn enough at A job, that he is able to feed his family, to provide decent housing for them, to provide for the education of his children, to provide for their necessary health care, to save for his retirement, and to have extra for a reasonable amount of recreation and enjoyment."
You, on the other hand, think a man should have to work 60 or 70 hours a week just to feed his "Own damn family". And why should he do this? So that you can have a million dollars instead of $950,000. Greed....one of the seven deadly sins.

mostpost:

I agree with Teddy Roosevelt's concept. How do you define decent housing, necessary health care, amount of education, enough for retirement and recreation?

boxcar

11-04-2009, 02:15 PM

So that you can have a million dollars instead of $950,000. Greed....one of the seven deadly sins.

Hey, Einstein...so is envy. And no one promotes this deadly sin better to the public than liberals with all their hypocritical anti-wealth, anti-capitalism, anti-private sector, class envy hate rhetoric.

Boxcar

mostpost

11-04-2009, 02:21 PM

Actions speak louder than words.
The fact is you opted to stay with the Post Office in spite of the hardships you report. The fact is you didn't take the "Real World" when you had a chance to.
BigMack implied that I did not know what a work was because I had a government job. Working for the Post Office is not an easy job. (If you're conscientious and do things right) It is a good job. The pay is good. The benefits are good. Job security is good. Why would I quit it?

mostpost

11-04-2009, 02:40 PM

mostpost:

I agree with Teddy Roosevelt's concept. How do you define decent housing, necessary health care, amount of education, enough for retirement and recreation?
Decent housing = A kitchen with reasonably contemporary and working appliances, large enough for a table at which the family can eat meals together. A living room of modest size, separate bedroom for the parents and appropriate separate bedrooms for the children based on age and gender.
Necessary Health care = being able to pay for, or afford insurance which pays, for immunizations, illnesses and hospitalizations for all members of the family.
Amount of education: Through high school, if desired. I don't think there is a right to a private education, nor to college.
Retirement: This is hard to say as an amount. Between Social Security, private pension and savings, a man or a man and his wife should have enough to live comfortably and deal with all but catastrophic illnesses.
Recreation= enough to take the wife out once every couple of months; to take the family out to dinner (or just lunch or breakfast) every couple of months; maybe take in a minor league ball game once or twice a season.
Vacations = enough to take a minimum of one vacation a year at a modest but nice destination.

mostpost

11-04-2009, 02:45 PM

Hey, Einstein...so is envy. And no one promotes this deadly sin better to the public than liberals with all their hypocritical anti-wealth, anti-capitalism, anti-private sector, class envy hate rhetoric.

Boxcar
Dear Mr. Boxcar,
You accidentally sent me a message you intended for Albert Einstein. I am sorry I do not know his e-mnail address in heaven, so I am unable to forward it to him.
Sincerely,
Mostpost
P.S.
Personally, I am not at all envious of whatever you have. I am only distressed that you acquire it at the expense of others.

boxcar

11-04-2009, 02:48 PM

Decent housing = A kitchen with reasonably contemporary and working appliances, large enough for a table at which the family can eat meals together. A living room of modest size, separate bedroom for the parents and appropriate separate bedrooms for the children based on age and gender.
Necessary Health care = being able to pay for, or afford insurance which pays, for immunizations, illnesses and hospitalizations for all members of the family.
Amount of education: Through high school, if desired. I don't think there is a right to a private education, nor to college.
Retirement: This is hard to say as an amount. Between Social Security, private pension and savings, a man or a man and his wife should have enough to live comfortably and deal with all but catastrophic illnesses.
Recreation= enough to take the wife out once every couple of months; to take the family out to dinner (or just lunch or breakfast) every couple of months; maybe take in a minor league ball game once or twice a season.
Vacations = enough to take a minimum of one vacation a year at a modest but nice destination.

Since you're on a roll today, Einstein, please tell us what your idea would be for a "fair" :rolleyes: minimum wage to pay for all the above.

Boxcar

boxcar

11-04-2009, 02:52 PM

Dear Mr. Boxcar,
You accidentally sent me a message you intended for Albert Einstein. I am sorry I do not know his e-mnail address in heaven, so I am unable to forward it to him.
Sincerely,
Mostpost
P.S.
Personally, I am not at all envious of whatever you have. I am only distressed that you acquire it at the expense of others.

So....let me see: I'm a professional, and I make $200K a year -- relatively modest income considering what I had to spend putting myself through college, earning my various degrees, etc. How do my earnings come at the expense of others? Explain that to me.

Boxcar
P.S. You're right. You're no Einstein; for he was smarter than dirt. :rolleyes:

mostpost

11-04-2009, 02:54 PM

Since you're on a roll today, Einstein, please tell us what your idea would be for a "fair" :rolleyes: minimum wage to pay for all the above.

Boxcar
Memo to PaceAdvantage:
I keep getting messages that are addressed to Albert Einstein. Is this a flaw in your Board?
Mostpost.

Greyfox

11-04-2009, 02:57 PM

BigMack implied that I did not know what a work was because I had a government job. Working for the Post Office is not an easy job. (If you're conscientious and do things right) It is a good job. The pay is good. The benefits are good. Job security is good. Why would I quit it?

I was simply responding to your statement: "I'll take the "Real World" any day" and pointing out the discrepancy between what you say you'd do and what you really did.

Most of the Public Servants that I've known don't have to apologize to me for their contributions to society. Their jobs are no easier than any in private industry. In contrast to 80 % of the other working stiffs though, those in Federal jobs have, in general, more security of employment and reasonable pension plans when they pull the pin.
Otherwise, sweat is sweat no matter where the energy is spent.

Frankly, I'm thankful that the public sector is the calling for some.

mostpost

11-04-2009, 03:07 PM

mostpost

11-04-2009, 03:18 PM

So....let me see: I'm a professional, and I make $200K a year -- relatively modest income considering what I had to spend putting myself through college, earning my various degrees, etc. How do my earnings come at the expense of others? Explain that to me.

Boxcar
P.S. You're right. You're no Einstein; for he was smarter than dirt. :rolleyes:
I don't know what profession you are in. I don't know how many employees, if any, you have. At $200k a year, I do not consider you to be rich. Well to do middle class probably.
The question is does your $200,000 a year come as the result of you underpaying your employees? In your case, I would be certain that it does not. But there are many cases where it does. There are many who will not give an employee a 50 cent an hour raise, or who will deny benefits, or will outsource jobs, so they can increase already large profits.

Another thing to consider is that people will do things as a part of a corporate culture, which they would not do in their private lives.

Tom

11-04-2009, 04:02 PM

Public work house? Is this Dickensian England. And aren't you the one who is against government intervention?
You worked harder? Prove it. I doubt if you worked any harder than the guy who is washing dishes eight hours a day in a restaurant, or the woman working at McDonald's for minimum wage. I doubt if you even work harder than the guys at your factory who build the duck blinds. What is there about you and what you do that makes you that much more valuable?
My employer has decided that the contribution I make is worth more, that is how. I contribute FAR more value to my company than a dishwasher or a burger packer. Anyone can walk in off the street and do those jobs - the person bring little to the table. Not many could walk in off the street and do my job. Those who could would want a hell of a lot more money than I make at it! :D If I have to settle for the same rewards as the burger flipper, why the hell would I show up at work and contribute far more value?

This is were socialism fails every time. I am worth more because I contribute more. The profits I help earn enable us to go after more business, to hire more people, to provide more jobs, to put more money in circulation. Some of the min wage people that do not contribute are welcome to come mow my lawn, shovel my driveway, so I can spend my time working. then, they will have earned a piece of my paycheck.

newtothegame

11-04-2009, 05:38 PM

I don't want to speak for NJ, but if I didn't believe what I say, Why would I say it?

A fair share is different for each person depending on income and circumstances. If I make a million dollars, 50% is not an unfair tax burden because I still have half a million dollars left to provide for my family; to buy them food and housing, to provide medical care, even to provide luxuries. if you make $20,000, 10% is an unfair tax burden, because you are left with insufficient money to care for your family...or even yourself.

The very rich should have a larger tax burden than the rich; the rich should have a larger tax burden than the well to do; the well to do should have a larger tax burden than the middle class; the middle class should have a larger tax burden than the poor.

We actually did quite well with higher tax rates. Plenty of people started and ran successful businesses when the top tax rates were 70% and higher. While I understand that there were othe factors involved, the economy did quite well after Clinton raised taxes and not so well after Bush lowered them.

OK, there's sarcasm there, isn't there? Leaving aside how efficiently those programs are run, they do indeed help to drive the economy. USPS alone employs over 600,000 people. Without those jobs those people would not be buying the products you and Bigmack are selling.

That is a specious argument. We both said we would be willing to pay more. We both said, we expect those who are better off than we are to also pay more. There is no way to determine who and how much is being returned to the Federal Government. There is a way to determine what rates are.

This is an interesting theory. No, not interesting.....BIZARRE. What you seem to be saying is the government has a vested interest in keeping a segment of the population impoverished so that they can subsidize their living standards.
You seem to be saying that the reason they do this is so they can raise taxes on others in order to pay for this. And of course the government does this just because they love taxes, especially if they are Democrats. You completely ignore the fact that the revenues produced are never sufficient to pay for these programs.

You totally defy logic here. You increase the tax base by decreasing the amount of money available to be taxed? Why does that seem wrong to me.
Is it not more logical to think that the government (AND, IN FACT, EVERYBODY) would want there to be less poor people. Less poor people means more people earning more money, means more consumers, means more entrepreneurs selling more products, means a larger tax base.

Ok, I know parts of my post seemed illogical...even after I read it. but let me address the things I can from your reply...
So you think its ok to tax a person more based on their income. And you called that "fair". And you said in essence my post didnt make sense lol. Now if I know a tax raise is coming for me if I make say a million a year, what would prevent me from stopping at 990,000? Do you not see the problem with what you propose? I could make ten thousand less (on my tax reporting) and save alot more by not going into the next higher tax bracket.

As for USPS and amtrak, they may employ all of the people you mentioned, but you have to ask yourself at what cost? Were you for the bailout and more bailouts and more bailouts of these large firms like the banking industry and the auto industry? Now of course there is no way you can answer that you were NOT for them because its essentially the same. We continue to pour money into the afore mentioned government programs only to lose more and more. This just amazes me how you could sit here and justify keeping afloat a losing proposition. Its like going to the track and betting on the horse that cant get up and walk out of the barn over and over again. Is that how you wager? I would hope not.

As for my tax and needing the impoverished class, let me try to explain better cause that sounded crazy even when I read it lol.
You said that the middle class was a shrinking number and the poor class was growing. Do you see the relation there? As long as there are poorly run programs like Amtrak (and so you dont think I am just picking on government run programs) GM CHRYSLER etc etc that require the government to bail them out, the middle class will continue to shrink. they will shrink due to rising taxes which will eventually put them into the poor class.
Secondly, in order for the government to continue to fund STUPID programs like the study of gay men who drink in argentina, they need to raise taxes. This is just one example. The need to fund their constituents projects in order to get re-elected. in their minds, they need to be whores in order to hold those offices. Some of those projects can be for the poor. I am sure there are many examples on both sides of the ailse in congress of this. But its a well known fact that social programs such as welfare etc are funded by democrats. What class of people use the social programs I mention? Its not the wealthy who you wish to tax more. Yep, you guessed it...the POOR. This in turn assures votes for that same party. Again, this is like betting on the horse i mentioned above. If you think not, why would you say the poor class is getting larger? So again, I think you would have to agree this is a FAILED policy. The purpose of these programs was to help people in need to get on their feet. I truly doubt they were intended to support people for life.
Now to make it a little more clear on "needing" the poor class.....its about VOTES. Acorn and other entities do NOT help in Martha's Vineyard. Who funds these entities like Acorn? Who does that funding come from? Yep, taxes. As the poor class grows, the government needs to raise more and more taxes. The only people they can tax are the wealthier. You cant tax the poor. So the wealthier become less and less wealthy...get where this is going? At some point, there will be no more to tax. Then what??
hope this made it bit better sense.

hcap

11-04-2009, 06:02 PM

"Incumbents get blamed for the economy.
Chris Christie ran in New Jersey as a moderate, not a movement conservative. There wasn’t a hint of guns, God or gays in Christie’s television ads; he talked only about taxes and the economy. He ran as a RINO."

Nate Silver says:

Obama approval was actually pretty strong in New Jersey, at 57 percent, but 27 percent of those who approved of Obama nevertheless voted for someone other than Corzine. This one really does appear to be mostly about Corzine being an unappealing candidate, as the Democrats look like they’ll lose just one or two seats in the state legislature in Trenton. Corzine compounded his problems by staying negative until the bitter end of the campaign rather than rounding out his portfolio after having closed the margin with Christie.

NJ Stinks

11-04-2009, 06:13 PM

A fair share is different for each person depending on income and circumstances. If I make a million dollars, 50% is not an unfair tax burden because I still have half a million dollars left to provide for my family; to buy them food and housing, to provide medical care, even to provide luxuries. if you make $20,000, 10% is an unfair tax burden, because you are left with insufficient money to care for your family...or even yourself.

What about the fact that I worked HARDER to get that million?
You totally fail to address why people make more money. If I can only expect to keep half, where is my incentive to work hard and be productive?
How about the guy who makes less has to show up and do MORE WORK at some kind of publkic work house? Maybe he works nights and weekends and then he gets to feed his own damn family?

I'm going to try and explain something that may or may not be relevant. Newtothegame, I especially hope you read this since you questioned what a fair tax rate for the wealthy is.

Let's say Newtothegame is married and will have $75,000 in taxable income (after deductions) in 2009. And let's say George Soros is married and will have $1M in taxable income (after deductions) in 2009. (I have no idea what either guy will make or whether or not both guys are married. This scenario just makes for a good example.)

Under the graduated income system in effect in this country, Newtothegame will pay the following in federal income tax in 2009 as a guy whose filing status is "married filing jointly": $11,125 in total or a little over almost 15% of his taxable income. The breakdown on how Newto's tax liability was computed follows:

On the first $16,700, Newto pays at a 10% tax rate or $1,670.
From $16,700 to $67,900, Newto pays at a tax rate of 15%. So $67,900 minus $16,700 = $51,200 x 15% = $7,680.
From $67,900 to $75,000, New to pays at a tax rate of 25%. So $75,000 minus the $67,900 = $7,100 x 25% = $1,775.

Add $1,670 + $7,680 + $1,775 and you get Newtothegame's total federal income tax liabilility in 2009, namely $11,125.

That was fun! Now let's look at what richer than sin George Soros had to pay. You may be surprised. Mainly because George only owes $320,362! How can this be?:confused: After all, Soros is in the highest income tax bracket there is today - the 35% tax rate. And everybody knows 35% of $1M equals $350,000. The reason is because Soros paid at the same 10%, 15%, and 25% tax rates that Newto did when computing his tax liability on the first $75,000 Soros made in 2009. It was only when George's income for the year started to surpass Newto's $75,000 that Soros paid at a higher rate. Up to $75,000 Newto and Soros were treated exactly the same tax-wise.

The breakdown on how George's fictional tax liability was computed follows:

On the first $16,700, George pays at a 10% tax rate or $1,670.
From $16,700 to $67,900, George pays at a tax rate of 15%. So $67,900 minus $16,700 = $51,200 x 15% = $7,680.
From $67,900 to $137,050 George pays at a tax rate of 25%. So $137,050 minus $67,900 = $69,150 x 25% = $17,287.50.
From $137,050 to $208,850 George pays at a tax rate of 28%. So $208,850 minus $137,050 = $71,800 x 28% = $20,104.
From $208,850 to $372,950 George pays at a rate of 33%. So $372,950 minus 208,850 = $164,100 x 33% = $54,153.
From $372,950 to $1M George pays at the maximum income tax rate - 35%. So $1M minus $372,950 = $627,050 x 35% = $219,467.50.

Add $1,670 + $7,680 + $17,287.50 + $20,104 + $54,153 + $219,467.50 and you get George's total federal income tax liabilility in 2009, namely $320,362.

Put another way, under the graduated income system in effect in this country, Soros will pay a little over 32% of his taxable income in federal income tax in 2009.

Is this unfair to Soros? I don't see why. He paid the same amount of federal income tax on his first $75,000 in earnings as Newto did. It was only after his income revealed that he was capable of paying more that his tax rates increased over Newto. The fact is Soros is benefitting more from everything the government supplies - especially the great security that protects Soros' wealth. (Military costs make up over half of the U.S. budget.) Couple this with the fact that the government can't get blood out of a rock and it's obvious to me that our country has selected the most fair way of extracting money to pay it's bills.

Obama has proposed doing away with GWB's maximum income tax rate (35%) and going back to the Bill Clinton maximum income tax rate (39.6%). How much extra would this increase in the federal tax rate cost Soros in 2009? $48,306 is the answer.

Now you tell me. Who needs this $48,306 more, any person who earned the $1M above or the U.S. government that has fought two wars in the last seven years aimed at keeping this person, his family, and his wealth safe?

(Sorry this thing was so long.)

hcap

11-04-2009, 06:24 PM

It amazes me that a 5 % increase in the top tax rate would cause so many here to clench up their panties in outrage. During the Clinton years we did ok. I don't think any one wants to go back to Eisenhower's over 90 % tax rate.

Income tax rate in the United States was 50% or higher every single year from 1932 through 1986.

It was over 90% for 1944-45, and 1950 through 1963. Note that the years during which we were at war the top rate exceeded 90%. Note that we are currently involved in two wars, in massive public debt, and operating with the lowest top marginal income tax rate since before the depression.

..Was the US "Socialist" during the entire time that we were fighting the cold war to restrain Communism?

..An Inquiry into the Nature And Causes of the Wealth of Nations indicates that Adam Smith had no problem with the idea of progressive taxation (though he preferred that the taxes be levied on something other than income). Try on this thought about the first fundamental precept of taxation:

"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state."

That's from the section of the work addressing "the Revenue of the Sovereign or Commonwealth," in particular, the "Sources of the General or Public Revenue of the Society." Smith explains the basis for this rule of taxation as follows:

"The expense of government to the individuals of a great nation is like the expense of management to the joint tenants of a great estate, who are all obliged to contribute in proportion to their respective interests in the estate. In the observation or neglect of this maxim consists what is called the equality or inequality of taxation."

hcap

11-04-2009, 06:32 PM

More from Adam Smith..

Later, addressing taxes on "house rents," Smith explicitly endorsed the idea of those with greater revenue paying a higher proportion of tax

"....The proportion of the expense of house-rent to the whole expense of living is different in the different degrees of fortune. It is perhaps highest in the highest degree, and it diminishes gradually through the inferior degrees, so as in general to be lowest in the lowest degree. The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

Smith explains this view by noting that..

" ...The rent of land is paid for the use of a productive subject. The land which pays it produces it. The rent of houses is paid for the use of an unproductive subject. Neither the house nor the ground which it stands upon produce anything. The person who pays the rent, therefore, must draw it from some other source of revenue distinct from the independent of this subject. A tax upon the rent of houses, so far as it falls upon the inhabitants, must be drawn from the same source as the rent itself, and must be paid from their revenue, whether derived from the wages of labour, the profits of stock, or the rent of land. So far as it falls upon the inhabitants, it is one of those taxes which fall, not upon one only, but indifferently upon all the three different sources of revenue, and is in every respect of the same nature as a tax upon any other sort of consumable commodities"

bigmack

11-04-2009, 07:15 PM

It amazes me that a 5 % increase in the top tax rate would cause so many here to clench up their panties in outrage. During the Clinton years we did ok. I don't think any one wants to go back to Eisenhower's over 90 % tax rate.
That 90+% was paid by the top bracket while the first bracket was around 20. Nice theatrics, but are you qualified to talk about top bracket?

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/11_4_09_16_03_38.png
http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/11_4_09_16_04_02.png

newtothegame

11-04-2009, 07:21 PM

I'm going to try and explain something that may or may not be relevant. Newtothegame, I especially hope you read this since you questioned what a fair tax rate for the wealthy is.

Let's say Newtothegame is married and will have $75,000 in taxable income (after deductions) in 2009. And let's say George Soros is married and will have $1M in taxable income (after deductions) in 2009. (I have no idea what either guy will make or whether or not both guys are married. This scenario just makes for a good example.)

Under the graduated income system in effect in this country, Newtothegame will pay the following in federal income tax in 2009 as a guy whose filing status is "married filing jointly": $11,125 in total or a little over almost 15% of his taxable income. The breakdown on how Newto's tax liability was computed follows:

On the first $16,700, Newto pays at a 10% tax rate or $1,670.
From $16,700 to $67,900, Newto pays at a tax rate of 15%. So $67,900 minus $16,700 = $51,200 x 15% = $7,680.
From $67,900 to $75,000, New to pays at a tax rate of 25%. So $75,000 minus the $67,900 = $7,100 x 25% = $1,775.

Add $1,670 + $7,680 + $1,775 and you get Newtothegame's total federal income tax liabilility in 2009, namely $11,125.

That was fun! Now let's look at what richer than sin George Soros had to pay. You may be surprised. Mainly because George only owes $320,362! How can this be?:confused: After all, Soros is in the highest income tax bracket there is today - the 35% tax rate. And everybody knows 35% of $1M equals $350,000. The reason is because Soros paid at the same 10%, 15%, and 25% tax rates that Newto did when computing his tax liability on the first $75,000 Soros made in 2009. It was only when George's income for the year started to surpass Newto's $75,000 that Soros paid at a higher rate. Up to $75,000 Newto and Soros were treated exactly the same tax-wise.

The breakdown on how George's fictional tax liability was computed follows:

On the first $16,700, George pays at a 10% tax rate or $1,670.
From $16,700 to $67,900, George pays at a tax rate of 15%. So $67,900 minus $16,700 = $51,200 x 15% = $7,680.
From $67,900 to $137,050 George pays at a tax rate of 25%. So $137,050 minus $67,900 = $69,150 x 25% = $17,287.50.
From $137,050 to $208,850 George pays at a tax rate of 28%. So $208,850 minus $137,050 = $71,800 x 28% = $20,104.
From $208,850 to $372,950 George pays at a rate of 33%. So $372,950 minus 208,850 = $164,100 x 33% = $54,153.
From $372,950 to $1M George pays at the maximum income tax rate - 35%. So $1M minus $372,950 = $627,050 x 35% = $219,467.50.

Add $1,670 + $7,680 + $17,287.50 + $20,104 + $54,153 + $219,467.50 and you get George's total federal income tax liabilility in 2009, namely $320,362.

Put another way, under the graduated income system in effect in this country, Soros will pay a little over 32% of his taxable income in federal income tax in 2009.

Is this unfair to Soros? I don't see why. He paid the same amount of federal income tax on his first $75,000 in earnings as Newto did. It was only after his income revealed that he was capable of paying more that his tax rates increased over Newto. The fact is Soros is benefitting more from everything the government supplies - especially the great security that protects Soros' wealth. (Military costs make up over half of the U.S. budget.) Couple this with the fact that the government can't get blood out of a rock and it's obvious to me that our country has selected the most fair way of extracting money to pay it's bills.

Obama has proposed doing away with GWB's maximum income tax rate (35%) and going back to the Bill Clinton maximum income tax rate (39.6%). How much extra would this increase in the federal tax rate cost Soros in 2009? $48,306 is the answer.

Now you tell me. Who needs this $48,306 more, any person who earned the $1M above or the U.S. government that has fought two wars in the last seven years aimed at keeping this person, his family, and his wealth safe?

(Sorry this thing was so long.)

Again, I understand your above post. My point is the government can NOT continue to place more and more of the burden on the wealthy. At some point, that cash cow will run dry. If you don't think the wealthy will just find loopholes, then you are fooling yourself. Just look at Obama's own administration and the large number of those who were tax cheats or failed to pay what they owe.
There has to be an alternative. And I say the alternative, as I have said all along, is that the SYSTEM itself needs CHANGE. Congress is broken badly. We can not continue to fund and support broken programs such as amtrak. We can NOT continue to bailout losing propositions such as GM. We can NOT continue to research programs such as drunken gay men in argentina. The list is long. And the list is long due to the electtion processes in my opinion. You truly dont think nancy pelosi gives a chit about the poor man in the philadelphia inner city who needs a heart transplant and cant afford the proceedure. All she cares about is VOTES. And this goes for the other side of the aisle as well. I have said many times here and other places that Congress as a whole has forgotten who put them in place and who they are there to take care of. Its about money and lining their pockets.
Until this is fixed.....well it will be a downward spiral.
So you may ask, then why do I rail against libs so much? Well I percieve them as the biggest wasters of my tax dollars. And we have to start somewhere. trust me....and not that senator vitter will read this, but it is my intention to not vote for his behind either. Of course I still need to see who will be running against him but, if there is a quality canidate, they will get my vote. Senator landrieu...NO SHOT.
Lets stop blowing up the moon...supporting losing causes, lets get real on global warming and stop the B.S., lets get REAL on healthcare and take out the trash in the bill and maybe it will get support ( at least it would mine).
Lets talk about tort reform instead of alterantive life choices. Lets talk about education instead of drinking habits of gay men in argentina. Lets tallk about highway and infrastructure repair instead of tunnels for turtles.
Lets tallk about creating real jobs instead of refurbishing dog parks.
Not that I am not a dog lover. But without a job, i can assure you I wouldnt be able to take dog to park.
We need to stop putting the cart before the horse.
PA I apologize for going on a bit of a tirade......
Paul aka newtothegame

hcap

11-04-2009, 07:29 PM

That 90+% was paid by the top bracket while the first bracket was around 20. Nice theatrics, but are you qualified to talk about top bracket?

What are you babbling about. The top tax bracket payments were higher than where Obama wants us to be now. That is approx back to the Clinton years level. Socialism? I don't think so. Nobody is talking about the first. BM. No theatrics.

Read my excerpts from Adam Smith. According to you guys. he's a radical communist. Maybe community organizer too. Could have been the founder of Acorn if you accept his....

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

exactaplayer

11-04-2009, 08:30 PM

The burden has not been placed on the wealthy, the burden has been placed on the middle class. And the well has run dry as the current economy shows.

Tom

11-04-2009, 10:49 PM

You called it PA......hcap has become a madman at the keyboard. This may have pushed him over the edge. :lol:

boxcar

11-04-2009, 11:16 PM

I don't know what profession you are in. I don't know how many employees, if any, you have. At $200k a year, I do not consider you to be rich. Well to do middle class probably.
The question is does your $200,000 a year come as the result of you underpaying your employees? In your case, I would be certain that it does not. But there are many cases where it does. There are many who will not give an employee a 50 cent an hour raise, or who will deny benefits, or will outsource jobs, so they can increase already large profits.

Another thing to consider is that people will do things as a part of a corporate culture, which they would not do in their private lives.

Maybe they can't give that 50-cent raise due to a little item called competition. Every time an employer gives his employees raises, that cuts into the company's profits -- sometimes quite seriously depending, of course, on many business-related variables. If a company can't earn enough profit to reinvest a good percentage of it back into the business, so that the employer could expand his workforce even more, for example, then the company is going to stagnate. Or what if the company doesn't make sufficient profit to make badly needed capital investments into his company to keep him competitive in the market? The business world is far more complex than you think and most businesses simply want to make sufficient profit to grow their business -- but that takes capital -- lots of it.

Ford just recorded about 1 billion in profit. That sounds like an awful lot of money, doesn't it? I suppose you think all the employees should get super-sized bonuses for such a "huge" profit? Or do you think the executives who make all the crucial decisions walked off with it all? And what about the shareholders in this corporation who have assumed an awful lot of RISKS? Aren't they entitled to receive return on their investment?

It's not as cut and dry as you make it out to be. The corporate world is dangerous jungle filled with predators. Just like most animals in the animal kingdom are territorial so, too, most companies only want to claim a stake in the corporate jungle. They just want their share of the action to stay alive. They want their part of the market. But it takes money to stay alive. Companies just can't pay their employees nilly willy. They must delicately balance out corporate needs with employee needs. Very often this is not easy by any stretch. Of course,this isn't to say that there aren't downright greedy companies out there who are only in it for themselves. But most companies realize that one of their most valuable assets is their workforce -- most especially the movers and shakers -- people who make good things happen for their bosses. Good companies won't want to lose these kinds of people. They'll do their level best to compensate them fairly [b]within the framework of what the market will bear[/i].

Boxcar

mostpost

11-04-2009, 11:17 PM

NJ, An excellent job of explaining the tax code to anyone who might not understand it.
To Newtothegame and all others who insist that raising taxes causes business investment to dry up. The following statistics come from the Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis.
I chose three eras, each eight years long.
First I chose the eight years beginning in January of 1947 and ending in December of 1954. This was an era of consistently high taxes over 80 and 90% on top.
Second, I chose the eight years of Ronald Reagan. (January of 1981 to December of 1988) This was the beginning of the lower taxes era.
Finally I chose the GW Bush years. (January of 2001 to December of 2008) During those years tax rates were as low as they have been in a long time.

For each of these eras I looked at the percentage change in GDP and Wage and Salary disbursement from the start of the era to the end of the era.
If it is true that higher taxes thwart growth and lower taxes stimulate growth, then the two latter eras should show much higher percentage gains.

Here is what I found:

Years xx Tax Rate xx %increase in GDP xx %Increase inwages
47-53 xx 82 to 92% xx 34.367 xxx 67.42

81-88 xx 28 to 70 xx 28.878 xxx 70.6

2001 to 2008 xx 35 to 39.1 xx 16.3 xxxx 31.2

It is apparent to anyone who looks at these figure that higher taxes do not inhibit growth and lower taxes do not necessarily help the economy.

Here is the link to the Dept. of commerce:
http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/SelectTable.asp
Table 1.1.3 and 2.2B The tax figures are from BigMack in post # 44

PaceAdvantage

11-05-2009, 02:24 AM

You called it PA......hcap has become a madman at the keyboard. This may have pushed him over the edge. :lol:I believe a nerve has been touched over at camp Hcap....:lol:

lamboguy

11-05-2009, 04:54 AM

christy won the race fair and square. he is taking over a state that has the highest real estate taxes around. people and jobs are moving out of the state because they can't afford to live there. i know the road to heaven is paved with great intentions, lets hope for christy to lead that state to better things in the future and keeps the doors open at monmouth park

ArlJim78

11-05-2009, 09:13 AM

.

Jg_TpflmSXs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jg_TpflmSXs&feature=player_embedded

Greyfox

11-05-2009, 11:47 AM

.

Jg_TpflmSXs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jg_TpflmSXs&feature=player_embedded

Brilliant. I haven't laughed so hard in a long time. :lol: :lol: :lol:

delayjf

11-05-2009, 01:18 PM

NJ Stinks

11-05-2009, 01:21 PM

Brilliant. I haven't laughed so hard in a long time. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Me neither! :lol:

Tom

11-05-2009, 02:38 PM

That is hilarious! :lol:

Boris

11-05-2009, 06:54 PM

Now you tell me. Who needs this $48,306 more, any person who earned the $1M above or the U.S. government that has fought two wars in the last seven years aimed at keeping this person, his family, and his wealth safe?

Neither. The guy that needs it most is the new employee that won't be hired.

JustRalph

11-05-2009, 07:17 PM

Neither. The guy that needs it most is the new employee that won't be hired.

Great Post!!!

delayjf

11-05-2009, 07:23 PM

or the U.S. government that has fought two wars in the last seven years aimed at keeping this person, his family, and his wealth safe?

First of all, we don't fight wars to maintain anyones wealth. We fight to defend this country, the Constitution and our way of life. If some drug smuggler makes millions of dollars running drugs do you believe the men and women of our armed forces are fighting for him??? Secondly, the only people your are going to get with the higher tax rates are those people attempting to climb the ladder of success right now. Its easy for all the liberal millionaire hollywood types to talk a big game because they already have their wealth. They might lose a bigger chunk going forward, but their lives and lifestyles will not be affected - they all think they will be exempt and will still be apart of the elite class.

NJ Stinks

11-05-2009, 10:54 PM

Neither. The guy that needs it most is the new employee that won't be hired.

There were 2.5M millionaires in the U.S at the end of 2008. In 2007 there were almost 3M U.S milionaires. Since GWB's income tax cuts came into full effect in 2003, U.S. millionaires have been keeping at least an additional $48G's a year unless they were multi-millionaires and kept even more. By the end of 2008 every U.S millionaire had saved at least $288G's ($48G's x 6 years) in federal income tax liability since GWB's income tax went into full effect in 2003.

Sounds like a "trickle-down economy" dream. :jump: Jobs must be plentiful! :jump:

Right. :rolleyes: What really happened was the country accumulated the biggest deficits ever, the value of the U.S. dollar plunged like a rock in a pond, and U.S. unemployment is the highest since The Great Depression. Yet some people still believe in the Tooth Fairy.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/25/business/fi-millionaires25

http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2002/06useconomics_gale.aspx

mostpost

11-05-2009, 11:38 PM

There were 2.5M millionaires in the U.S at the end of 2008. In 2007 there were almost 3M U.S milionaires. Since GWB's income tax cuts came into full effect in 2003, U.S. millionaires have been keeping at least an additional $48G's a year unless they were multi-millionaires and kept even more. By the end of 2008 every U.S millionaire had saved at least $288G's ($48G's x 6 years) in federal income tax liability since GWB's income tax went into full effect in 2003.

Sounds like a "trickle-down economy" dream. :jump: Jobs must be plentiful! :jump:

Right. :rolleyes: What really happened was the country accumulated the biggest deficits ever, the value of the U.S. dollar plunged like a rock in a pond, and U.S. unemployment is the highest since The Great Depression. Yet some people still believe in the Tooth Fairy.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/25/business/fi-millionaires25

http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2002/06useconomics_gale.aspx
Here is more proof that lowering taxes is not the be all and end all of economic recovery. This file shows the unemployment rates for every month from 1948 to the present. The last column shows the first and top tax rates as given to us by BigMack in #44. It clearly shows that unemployment tended to be lower when tax rates were higher. Since Republicans have been crying crocidile tears over the high unemployment in "Obama's Recession" I know this information will be of interest to all.