Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Debate


  • Please log in to reply
129 replies to this topic

#106 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,331 posts

Posted 04 October 2012 - 09:16 AM

Not that I am pro tax, but I think the fair tax or consumption tax would favor the wealthy waaay too much.


Monthly standard of living cut for everyone. You only pay taxes on new items. No loopholes to exploit as it has existed in the current system for over a century. The notion of a progressive tax is essentially punishing a taxpayer for doing better... it isn't only ethically deplorable, but also a great way to kill growth of all kinds as incentives are no longer worthwhile.

#107 GAme

GAme

    MEMBER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 398 posts

Posted 04 October 2012 - 09:22 AM

The problem with Romney's plan to grow revenue through putting more people back to work is that many of the people that are unemployed currently are people that would be in the middle or lower middle class if they had jobs. Those people likely aren't going to be paying federal income taxes anyway, especially if they have kids. Sure they'd help contribute to medicare and SS, but they wouldn't help the overall government budget (other than they would no longer be receiving unemployment pay or other government benefits).

Restructuring of the tax code has to be done. We can't just rely on putting more people back to work because those without jobs aren't likely to be high income earners anyway.

F the income for the gov't. The point is to put money in everyones pocket and in turn, back into the economy. It would be people being hired on every level, not just low income families that don't pay tax. It's engineers, doctors(those who still want to be one), trades, and executives alike. Small business makes up 54% of working Americans and lots of those people that lost their job were making 100k plus and paid plenty of tax.

#108 thatlookseasy

thatlookseasy

    Death to pennies

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,950 posts

Posted 04 October 2012 - 09:33 AM

If you doubt it, then I would suggest picking up a Wall Street Journal and look at what the people that make decisions in business say. Don't take my word for it. Get it directly from the horse's mouth.

The free market can take a serious hit when you have an event like a 9/11 (hence the purpose of the strike). However, outside of that, if government can get out of the way (save for preventing monopolies and enforcing laws against fraud) free enterprise will fare tremendously better. People as consumers can then pick the winners and losers rather than a few bureaucrats in DC that think they know what's best for the entire country (and in some cases, the world).

George Bush started something absolutely horrible at the end of his presidency with TARP and his stimulus bills. I understand the reasoning that we needed to keep the debt solvent for foreign investment, but the current administration has taken the concept and passed out free candy ever since. Never mind that our kids will have to shoulder the burden of paying the debt (likely through runaway inflation... or as Bernanke calls it, "Quantitative Easement") that we racked up. "Great work son! Here's my credit card bill. Good luck with that!"

Something that escapes this generation of Americans is the discipline of failure. If you aren't allowed to fail at the expense of your peers, then you have no reason to fix what's broken. Meanwhile, everyone else has to shoulder your continual fugups because the bureaucrats decided that they're too important to endure managed bankruptcy like everyone else.


Look, I agree that a free market governed through effective regulations is the best way to run an economy. But you cant claim that all government involvement hurts the economy.

For instance China's government is very intertwined with the market, yet they have experienced massive economic growth over the last 20 years. Not saying I want to become China, but it is okay to look around and imitate the successes of other nations even if they dont happen to love freedom as much as we do

#109 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,331 posts

Posted 04 October 2012 - 09:38 AM

Look, I agree that a free market governed through effective regulations is the best way to run an economy. But you cant claim that all government involvement hurts the economy.

For instance China's government is very intertwined with the market, yet they have experienced massive economic growth over the last 20 years. Not saying I want to become China, but it is okay to look around and imitate the successes of other nations even if they dont happen to love freedom as much as we do


Take a look at how much of that growth is due to Hong Kong and get back to me on that.

#110 Niner National

Niner National

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,400 posts

Posted 04 October 2012 - 09:39 AM

F the income for the gov't. The point is to put money in everyones pocket and in turn, back into the economy. It would be people being hired on every level, not just low income families that don't pay tax. It's engineers, doctors(those who still want to be one), trades, and executives alike. Small business makes up 54% of working Americans and lots of those people that lost their job were making 100k plus and paid plenty of tax.

Have you ever looked at the demographics of the unemployed?

They're not doctors and engineers.

The highest levels of unemployment are those that work labor jobs like construction or manufacturing. Those jobs are mostly worked by people that do not have a college degree, or in some cases, no high school diploma. Very few of these people are likely to be high income earners.

#111 GAme

GAme

    MEMBER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 398 posts

Posted 04 October 2012 - 10:13 AM

Have you ever looked at the demographics of the unemployed?

They're not doctors and engineers.

The highest levels of unemployment are those that work labor jobs like construction or manufacturing. Those jobs are mostly worked by people that do not have a college degree, or in some cases, no high school diploma. Very few of these people are likely to be high income earners.


Maybe a majority of them are. There is still a large group of people that are working for much less money than they are used to and not using their degrees. There are people that had small business's and lost it all. As the economy grows, so will all sects of small business. Those people that are working as a bartender or waiter now can use their degree to get a job with a company that is growing, thus opening up a bartender job for someone who is more qualified. Maybe that person has some capital and wants to start their own business. America will not work without a thriving private sector, and Obama is killing it with regulation and taxation.

#112 GAme

GAme

    MEMBER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 398 posts

Posted 04 October 2012 - 10:15 AM

People are scared to hire with Obama coming back in. If Romney wins, the economy will immediately start to rebound. Bank on it.

#113 ARSEN

ARSEN

    Banned

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,945 posts

Posted 04 October 2012 - 10:23 AM

Can someone help me... Obama plans on taxing wealthy more. How is he going to do that? Very wealthy people income comes from capital gains and only taxable at 15% and he's will not change that. So only upper middle class will get screwed by tax hike and not wealthy. I'm I getting that right?

#114 Niner National

Niner National

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,400 posts

Posted 04 October 2012 - 10:25 AM

Can someone help me... Obama plans on taxing wealthy more. How is he going to do that? Very wealthy people income comes from capital gains and only taxable at 15% and he's will not change that. So only upper middle class will get screwed by tax hike and not wealthy. I'm I getting that right?

He wants to raise the capital gains tax.

Either way, I'm sure the middle class will get screwed.

#115 ARSEN

ARSEN

    Banned

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,945 posts

Posted 04 October 2012 - 10:35 AM

Increasing capital gain tax rate is not a good idea. Market will take a huge hit...

#116 thefuzz

thefuzz

    coppin a feel

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,974 posts

Posted 04 October 2012 - 10:37 AM

Can someone help me... Obama plans on taxing wealthy more. How is he going to do that? Very wealthy people income comes from capital gains and only taxable at 15% and he's will not change that. So only upper middle class will get screwed by tax hike and not wealthy. I'm I getting that right?


This is correct.

Middle class families will take the beat down, not the big dogs.

As for the debate, it's almost like Obama was broadcasting that he does not want the job any longer.

While it's really tough to get an incumbent out of office, he was sure waving the white flag.

#117 GAme

GAme

    MEMBER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 398 posts

Posted 04 October 2012 - 10:38 AM

Of course it won't work. It's a ridiculous tax to begin with. You pay tax on your capital, then you pay tax on your profit. GTFO The only tax he will lower is corporate b/c he's so deep with GE(who only half of their workforce is in America) and GM. It's a joke.

#118 MadHatter

MadHatter

    The Only Voice of Reason

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,251 posts
  • LocationDark Side of the Moon

Posted 04 October 2012 - 11:27 AM

It was clear that Mitt was more polished as he has been debating much of the summer....a polished turd with little substance but polished nonetheless.


Do you EVER have anything of substance to add to a conversation?

#119 Panthro

Panthro

    aka Pablo

  • Moderators
  • 23,462 posts

Posted 04 October 2012 - 11:54 AM

Do you EVER have anything of substance to add to a conversation?

.

This is a tad hypocritical

#120 stirs

stirs

    I Reckon So

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,344 posts

Posted 04 October 2012 - 11:58 AM

What will the media do now?

The man they have tried to fashion into the rich, elite, non caring, ill informed politician, showed up and put egg on all their faces.
All the crap they have been telling the public for the last several months was exposed as lies last evening.

On the other hand, the smartest, most caring guy in the world in Obama was exposed as the Emperor with no clothes. He also rubbed egg in their face and that is why they are so angry. They have no credibility now, and they had little to begin with.

Today, they hate Romney and Obama as both exposed them


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.