or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › President Obama calls Apple CEO Tim Cook to discuss 'fiscal cliff'
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

President Obama calls Apple CEO Tim Cook to discuss 'fiscal cliff' - Page 3

post #81 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by allenbf View Post

 

He uses the system like anyone else. 

 

Which brings up a great point that not enough are discussing - reforming the entire tax code.  It should be central to the discussion of raising revenue and cutting spending.

Tax evasion is using the system?

 

I don't owe a single cent in taxes and I'm fully up to date, including 2012. I can't take somebody seriously, when they're as filthy rich as Warren Buffet, and he doesn't pay what he owes, yet goes around saying that taxes should be raised. 

post #82 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by "Apple 
[" url="/t/154437/president-obama-calls-apple-ceo-tim-cook-to-discuss-fiscal-cliff/40#post_2234703"]Did they want to lower it? I thought that they just didn't want to raise any taxes.

Either way, it doesn't really bother me, as I'm not a Republican and I'm definitely not a Democrat.

Personally, I believe that taxes should be raised on the poor, as there are far too many freeloading Americans who should be contributing more. A country where the citizens rely more and more on the government is not a model for success.

The hardest working people in this country are the ones you despite so much. The ones you think are below you. The ones you consider to be such filthy degenerates that their very existence in this nation is an affront to your wellbeing. These are the people that have started with much less opportunity than you.

These are the ones that have to work much harder to get a fraction of what you have. I know this about you from the fact you are on this forum complaining about them. They are working. They are struggling. They are suffering.

All we are doing is discussing it. We have that luxury. I don't deny that I was born with privileges that far exceed most of the greater than 8 billion people in this world. That is a reality that I'm thankful for, not one that I feel entitled to as you do. I have nearly every box marked on the opportunity checklist but I still recognize that most of the world isn't so lucky so I don't spit on them for not being as fortuitous in birth as I was.

Here is an exercise: Think of a job you would never do. Now ask yourself why you wouldn't do it when others do ti every day. Is it because you don't have the aptitude? Is it because you think it's beneath you? What do you think would have had to happen in your life to make that a job you would beg to have?

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #83 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by maccherry View Post

The president and the president of the most valuable company on earth. Very smart move.

Think about it, the rich are hoarding over 40 trillion overseas. The country is pathetically rich.

A little taxes ain't sh** to the wealthy.

I remember watching a documentary where Dominique Strauss Khan said he was at a party attend by plutocrats and he overhead some hedge fund mangers say the government should tax them more. Why?

Because they are making too much damn money.

 

Yep, we should just take the millions and billions from all those movie actors and musicians, you know, the type Obama likes to run with.  Just think of the money Springsteen, Madonna, Jay-Z, etc. have that could be put to much better use.

Just say no to MacMall.  They don't honor their promotions and won't respond to customer inquiries.  There are better retailers out there.
Reply
Just say no to MacMall.  They don't honor their promotions and won't respond to customer inquiries.  There are better retailers out there.
Reply
post #84 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

 

Half of the deficit could be eliminated in a single year if Obama simply passed a law removing the tax exempt status from "churches" in the United States.  If churches and religious organisations paid taxes, the figure is roughly 72 billion dollars a year.  One single law (and a very fair and reasonable law at that), and the entire deficit disappears in two years.  

 

It will never happen because Americans are crazier for religion overall than many Muslim states, but it's as reasonable as any other fix I've heard IMO.  1smile.gif

 

It will also never happen b/c you suck ass at math.  Since when is $72B half of $16T?

post #85 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


The hardest working people in this country are the ones you despite so much. The ones you think are below you. The ones you consider to be such filthy degenerates that their very existence in this nation is an affront to your wellbeing. These are the people that have started with much less opportunity than you.
These are the ones that have to work much harder to get a fraction of what you have. I know this about you from the fact you are on this forum complaining about them. They are working. They are struggling. They are suffering.
All we are doing is discussing it. We have that luxury. I don't deny that I was born with privileges that far exceed most of the greater than 8 billion people in this world. That is a reality that I'm thankful for, not one that I feel entitled to as you do. I have nearly every box marked on the opportunity checklist but I still recognize that most of the world isn't so lucky so I don't spit on them for not being as fortuitous in birth as I was.
Here is an exercise: Think of a job you would never do. Now ask yourself why you wouldn't do it when others do ti every day. Is it because you don't have the aptitude? Is it because you think it's beneath you? What do you think would have had to happen in your life to make that a job you would beg to have?

I don't come from any privilege, I'd say that I come from an average upbringing, not poor, not rich.

 

As for hard workers who are struggling, there is a certain entitlement mentality that many people have, especially lower class Americans and much of the current younger generation. What about the 18,500 workers who now no longer have jobs making Twinkies and other Hostess products, because of greedy Unions? Hostess did the right thing, and instead of giving in to outrageous Union demands, they said, fine, we'll just shut down the whole business. How much are those workers making per hour now? lol.gif

 

How many Americans are on food stamps now under Obama? The number is through the roof. lol.gif

 

And just wait until that Obamacare fiasco starts kicking in more and more. More businesses, especially restaurants, will be cutting down worker's hours. It also doesn't help that there are many millions of illegal intruders in the country who are competing for many of the same low paying jobs that unemployed actual Americans are.

 

I predict that the next four years will be quite entertaining.

post #86 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSquirrel View Post

 

It will also never happen b/c you suck ass at math.  Since when is $72B half of $16T?

 

His math aside, you're confusing the deficit and national debt.  The national debt is $16T.  Not the deficit.

post #87 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

I don't come from any privilege, I'd say that I come from an average upbringing, not poor, not rich.

 

As for hard workers who are struggling, there is a certain entitlement mentality that many people have, especially lower class Americans and much of the current younger generation. What about the 18,500 workers who now no longer have jobs making Twinkies and other Hostess products, because of greedy Unions? Hostess did the right thing, and instead of giving in to outrageous Union demands, they said, fine, we'll just shut down the whole business. How much are those workers making per hour now? lol.gif

 

How many Americans are on food stamps now under Obama? The number is through the roof. lol.gif

 

And just wait until that Obamacare fiasco starts kicking in more and more. More businesses, especially restaurants, will be cutting down worker's hours. It also doesn't help that there are many millions of illegal intruders in the country who are competing for many of the same low paying jobs that unemployed actual Americans are.

 

I predict that the next four years will be quite entertaining.

RE: Twinkie and Hostess, let's remember this wasn't a company without financial woes already.  And you're also forgetting that many of those 18,500 rather make something rather than nothing,  They may belong to the union but that doesn't mean they fully support it.

 

I have to question, do you even know any "low class Americans?"  Because from your tone and description, I say you don't.  I do - I was raised in a poor part of the country and some of those people are my family and childhood friends.  They don't want a handout.  They want a job.  They want a shot at success, even though their definition of success is different than yours and mine.

 

Have a little compassion my friend.  You may find yourself in need someday and wish you had.  Karma is a bitch, believe me.

post #88 of 169

Any profitable company will create jobs when there is an increase in demand, and will eventually decrease jobs when there is a decrease in demand.

 

If the 'rich' or 'corporations' are given tax cuts, it will NOT result in them taking the extra money and creating jobs independent of demand.  If the demand doesn't change the number of jobs won't change.   Companies and businesses don't just look at a extra cash and say "LET'S SPEND IT!!!"    Nope, they stock it away and sit on it... maybe give it in bonuses and back to investors who mostly sit on it (because they don't have to spend all their money to make ends-meet.)

 

You create jobs by creating demand.  You create demand by increasing the wealth towards the working class (middle-class).   If you want a healthy economy you work on getting a healthy middle-class... NOT a rich upper-class....     Such a line-of-BS that lowering taxes will increase jobs or decreasing taxes will lower jobs without mentioning the real driver "DEMAND"

 

-IQ78

post #89 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

I don't come from any privilege, I'd say that I come from an average upbringing, not poor, not rich.

 

As for hard workers who are struggling, there is a certain entitlement mentality that many people have, especially lower class Americans and much of the current younger generation. What about the 18,500 workers who now no longer have jobs making Twinkies and other Hostess products, because of greedy Unions? Hostess did the right thing, and instead of giving in to outrageous Union demands, they said, fine, we'll just shut down the whole business. How much are those workers making per hour now? lol.gif

 

How many Americans are on food stamps now under Obama? The number is through the roof. lol.gif

 

And just wait until that Obamacare fiasco starts kicking in more and more. More businesses, especially restaurants, will be cutting down worker's hours. It also doesn't help that there are many millions of illegal intruders in the country who are competing for many of the same low paying jobs that unemployed actual Americans are.

 

I predict that the next four years will be quite entertaining.

 

 

Also, I forgot to add, let's remember that in the last few decades, and accelerated under GW Bush, the gap between the rich and poor in this country has escalated at a ridiculous pace.    I've already said but it is worth saying again, Bush gave his buddies tax cuts (sure, everyone got a cut) and then borrowed money for 2 wars, only one of which was justified.  You can't dig out of that hole in 4 years.  Especially not without raising revenue. And yes, cutting spending

post #90 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

I don't have any big objections to raising the tax rate slightly on the super wealthy, though I don't believe that it will help much in solving the spending problem that the administration and government has.

 

The poor and the wealthy can have their taxes raised, I'm ok with that. The poor don't pay anything at all, make them pay just a little bit, so that they can become contributing members of society, not reliant on government. It's the middle class that should be left alone, in my opinion.

On a very basic non partisan human level, my view is simply that nobody is worth more than a certain amount of money per year. That limit is debatable but lets say a couple of million (yes please!). The rest of the money should go to the common good. For all the people that no longer want to do what they are doing because of the wage cut... fine, there will be others who will do a lot for a couple of million per year. Profits on money earned on non productive speculative work (work that doesn't create anything worth while) should be very heavily taxed. As much as I am an Apple fan, the amount of money Apple is sitting on is just too much. I don't for a minute think Apple would cease being great if they had to feed back a little more. The Jackpot style economy is stupid in the proper sense of the word. What makes sense is that wealth is distributed so that working people can spend more time enjoying their lives. For normal, average people to accept that a tiny minority have the majority of the wealth and power just doesn't make sense unless a state of self delusion is equates to blissful happiness.

post #91 of 169

Back that up right now.  40 trillion is the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard.

post #92 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by IQ78 View Post

Any profitable company will create jobs when there is an increase in demand, and will eventually decrease jobs when there is a decrease in demand.

 

If the 'rich' or 'corporations' are given tax cuts, it will NOT result in them taking the extra money and creating jobs independent of demand.  If the demand doesn't change the number of jobs won't change.   Companies and businesses don't just look at a extra cash and say "LET'S SPEND IT!!!"    Nope, they stock it away and sit on it... maybe give it in bonuses and back to investors who mostly sit on it (because they don't have to spend all their money to make ends-meet.)

 

You create jobs by creating demand.  You create demand by increasing the wealth towards the working class (middle-class).   If you want a healthy economy you work on getting a healthy middle-class... NOT a rich upper-class....     Such a line-of-BS that lowering taxes will increase jobs or decreasing taxes will lower jobs without mentioning the real driver "DEMAND"

 

-IQ78

Wait so you're saying if Trump gets a tax cut he's not going to create jobs??  ;-)  ;-)

post #93 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac_128 View Post

But it's the only way to save the Twinkie ..

That's one bailout I'd vote for.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #94 of 169

And Dominick Strauss Khn is who, again?  an American?  no.  How is he relevant?  he isn't.  Do I believe anything he says?  No.  Does a brain-dead liberal?  Very likely.

 

Liberals always whine about how the government should tax them MORE because in reality, liberals are greedy a-holes who would never in a million years voluntarily pay more taxes.  While most conservatives donate to charity as part of their lives, liberals are the real greed class.  They know it, and thats why they bitch about raising taxes, to alleviate their own guilt, because they are black-hearted vulgar little misers who only want to share what you have with everybody else.

post #95 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by allenbf View Post

RE: Twinkie and Hostess, let's remember this wasn't a company without financial woes already.  And you're also forgetting that many of those 18,500 rather make something rather than nothing,  They may belong to the union but that doesn't mean they fully support it.

 

I have to question, do you even know any "low class Americans?"  Because from your tone and description, I say you don't.  I do - I was raised in a poor part of the country and some of those people are my family and childhood friends.  They don't want a handout.  They want a job.  They want a shot at success, even though their definition of success is different than yours and mine.

 

Have a little compassion my friend.  You may find yourself in need someday and wish you had.  Karma is a bitch, believe me.

I don't classify "low class Americans" by financial status. I've met plenty of people who might not have tons of money, but are good people and have a good head on their shoulders. I'd say that my classification is more based on ideology and mentality, and you're right, I don't associate with any of those sorts of people.

 

And even though a couple of people might think that I come off as not being compassionate, I can be at times, it all depends on the circumstances.

post #96 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman View Post

On a very basic non partisan human level, my view is simply that nobody is worth more than a certain amount of money per year. That limit is debatable but lets say a couple of million (yes please!). The rest of the money should go to the common good. For all the people that no longer want to do what they are doing because of the wage cut... fine, there will be others who will do a lot for a couple of million per year. Profits on money earned on non productive speculative work (work that doesn't create anything worth while) should be very heavily taxed. As much as I am an Apple fan, the amount of money Apple is sitting on is just too much. I don't for a minute think Apple would cease being great if they had to feed back a little more. The Jackpot style economy is stupid in the proper sense of the word. What makes sense is that wealth is distributed so that working people can spend more time enjoying their lives. For normal, average people to accept that a tiny minority have the majority of the wealth and power just doesn't make sense unless a state of self delusion is equates to blissful happiness.

My rule of thumb is if it's impossible for a person to out spend their income than they're making too much money.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #97 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by "Apple 
[" url="/t/154437/president-obama-calls-apple-ceo-tim-cook-to-discuss-fiscal-cliff/80#post_2234743"]I don't come from any privilege, I'd say that I come from an average upbringing, not poor, not rich.

Bullshit! You are an American which off the bat means your upbringing is highly unlikely to be the world average. The last report I read has more than 1 billion people in the world not getting enough to eat.

Where did you go to school? A private school (which are usually created by religious organizations which you despite) or a public school (which you also despite because that's big government telling the citizen what to do and using their money to do it)? This of the education system that most of the world has. Think of those that have none. Now consider that most are started by people that are working for charitable and religious organizations.

What you've described is your upbringing as compared to your peers but you need to consider the world (all those people you think are below you) to see that you have more opportunity than most.
Quote:
How many Americans are on food stamps now under Obama? The number is through the roof. lol.gif

1) Why are they on food stamps? Do you think they said we a weak president in office so we don't have to work? What about unpaid wars? What about a housing bubble that crashed? What about the recession that has caused people to lose jobs and homes so that they jobs they had to take require them to seek other options for feeding their families?

2) What the **** is so funny about that?

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #98 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by "Apple 
[" url="/t/154437/president-obama-calls-apple-ceo-tim-cook-to-discuss-fiscal-cliff/80#post_2234760"]I don't classify "low class Americans" by financial status. I've met plenty of people who might not have tons of money, but are good people and have a good head on their shoulders. I'd say that my classification is more based on ideology and mentality, and you're right, I don't associate with any of those sorts of people.

And even though a couple of people might think that I come off as not being compassionate, I can be at times, it all depends on the circumstances.

Paris Hinton is a perfect example of a wealthy "low class American".
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #99 of 169

These liberals casually use the word "deficit" and few of them have any clue what it actually is.  Many don't understand the difference between a yearly budget deficit, and the national deficit.

 

Here's a clue, to the stupid:

 

The national debt is upwards of 16 trillion dollars.  The YEARLY BUDGET DEFICIT is a total unknown, arbitrary number, because the government, thanks to democrats, has not PRODUCED an annual budget in 4 years, so the next time you want to spout off about the budget, just shut your hole.  There is no deficit until there is a budget, because without a budget, you don't know what the deficit number is.

post #100 of 169

The load of BS is almost everything you just said.  The lifeblood of this country is not a series of corporations, it is a plethora of small businesses, and all of them are independent, and all of them rely on every available dime fro growth.

 

Start a company and build something before you open your mouth to say something so stupid again.  You don't have clue what you're talking about.

post #101 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman View Post

On a very basic non partisan human level, my view is simply that nobody is worth more than a certain amount of money per year. That limit is debatable but lets say a couple of million (yes please!). The rest of the money should go to the common good. For all the people that no longer want to do what they are doing because of the wage cut... fine, there will be others who will do a lot for a couple of million per year. Profits on money earned on non productive speculative work (work that doesn't create anything worth while) should be very heavily taxed. As much as I am an Apple fan, the amount of money Apple is sitting on is just too much. I don't for a minute think Apple would cease being great if they had to feed back a little more. The Jackpot style economy is stupid in the proper sense of the word. What makes sense is that wealth is distributed so that working people can spend more time enjoying their lives. For normal, average people to accept that a tiny minority have the majority of the wealth and power just doesn't make sense unless a state of self delusion is equates to blissful happiness.

I disagree with just about everything that you've written. I don't think that I'd want to live in a society such as yours. I also don't think that such a society would produce many innovations in tech, science or in any other fields.

 

I hear that France is going to tax the wealthy at 75%, we'll see how that works out for them. I predict a disaster.

post #102 of 169

I never met a real live socialist till now.  Not one who would admit to it anyway.

post #103 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by IQ78 View Post

Any profitable company will create jobs when there is an increase in demand, and will eventually decrease jobs when there is a decrease in demand.

If the 'rich' or 'corporations' are given tax cuts, it will NOT result in them taking the extra money and creating jobs independent of demand.  If the demand doesn't change the number of jobs won't change.   Companies and businesses don't just look at a extra cash and say "LET'S SPEND IT!!!"    Nope, they stock it away and sit on it... maybe give it in bonuses and back to investors who mostly sit on it (because they don't have to spend all their money to make ends-meet.)

You create jobs by creating demand.  You create demand by increasing the wealth towards the working class (middle-class).   If you want a healthy economy you work on getting a healthy middle-class... NOT a rich upper-class....     Such a line-of-BS that lowering taxes will increase jobs or decreasing taxes will lower jobs without mentioning the real driver "DEMAND"

-IQ78

I agree up to a point. Hostess products have been going down in demand not because the middle class couldn't afford it but because of the whole health food craze, they failed to change with what consumers want. McDonald's was in the same situation as few years back and added new healthier items to its menu and turned things around. Unions get the blame for what ultimately is mismanagement.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #104 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by "Apple 
[" url="/t/154437/president-obama-calls-apple-ceo-tim-cook-to-discuss-fiscal-cliff/80#post_2234767"]I disagree with just about everything that you've written. I don't think that I'd want to live in a society such as yours. I also don't think that such a society would produce many innovations in tech, science or in any other fields.

I hear that France is going to tax the wealthy at 75%, we'll see how that works out for them. I predict a disaster.


Really? How about the US circa 1950s where the rich were taxed more than 75%, and it was the most prosperous decade this country had ever seen.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #105 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


Bullshit! You are an American which off the bat means your upbringing is highly unlikely to be the world average. The last report I read has more than 1 billion people in the world not getting enough to eat.

 

I was describing my upbringing from an American point of view of course. I don't really care about the rest of the world, or people living in mud huts. I thought that the topic was about the "fiscal cliff", and US politics. Even though I've travelled a lot and I've been to many places, I am definitely not a "citizen of the world", nor would I want to be one.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post
2) What the **** is so funny about that?

 

I find it funny, because elections have consequences, and I believe that many ignorant Obama voters will be far worse off these next four years. For those sorts of people, I have no compassion, and I will mock and laugh at their stupidity as things get progressively worse.

post #106 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by allenbf View Post

 

The entire premise reminds me of Texas' desire to secede.  That'll last until the next hurricane hits the TX coast, then they'll wish for FEMA funds.

 

I dont want to secede, that's insane- but Texas might be the only state that would be absolutely fine on it's own.

 

From http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/13/secession-yall-why-texas-can-pull-it-off/  Some tongue-in-cheek humor, but also true.

 

 

–Resources. Texas currently sits on one-quarter of the nation’s oil reserves and one-third of the nation’s natural gas reserves. Even more, fully 95% of the country receives its oil and gas courtesy of pipelines that originate within Texas. This is what one might call leverage.
 
–The Texas Economy. This is well documented but worth repeating. In the last decade, even with the Great Recession, Texas has expanded by one million jobs. One million. That’s more than every other state … combined. Because of its friendly business climate, Texas is home to more Fortune 500 companies than anywhere else. If Texas were its own country, it would have the thirteenth-highest GDP in the world, just behind Canada and Russia. Or think about it this way: For every dollar Texas taxpayers send to Washington, they currently get only about 80 cents back. Theoretically, they could transfer those funds to the state’s coffers and still give every Texan a 20 percent tax cut.
 
–Utilities. Texas is the only state with its own power grid. Developed over the course of the last 100 years, the Texas grid covers the majority of the state and is fully state controlled. Translation: Texans could rest assured that the federal government doesn’t have the power — literally — to turn off their lights.
 
–Defense. While no match for Uncle Sam’s firepower, Texas does have a significant defense presence, namely in the Texas State Guard (which answers only to the governor), the Texas National Guard, the Air Guard and the legendary Texas Rangers. Texas is also home to two of the nation’s largest military bases — Fort Hood and Fort Bliss — and being able to control those two installations is nothing to sniff at. But let’s not forget the firepower of the citizenry itself. There’s a reason burglars don’t waste their time in Texas.
 
–History. Texas has done this before. Twice, actually. First in 1836, when it seceded from Mexico and became an independent country. Second in 1861, when it joined the Confederacy. And while the South did lose the Civil War, it didn’t lose it in Texas. In fact, by the end of 1864, the North didn’t have one square foot of Texas soil under its control despite many attempts. Even a full month after Robert E. Lee surrendered at the Appomattox Court House, Texas was still fighting. Texans love their state and they love a fight. That is a lethal combination

Edited by Andysol - 11/19/12 at 11:31am

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini 2, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini 2, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #107 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Really? How about the US circa 1950s where the rich were taxed more than 75%, and it was the most prosperous decade this country had ever seen.

It also seems to be the time in American history that Romney and Friends were saying they want to get the US back to being. I think the exact example used was Leave It To Beaver.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #108 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by maccherry View Post

The president and the president of the most valuable company on earth. Very smart move.

Think about it, the rich are hoarding over 40 trillion overseas. The country is pathetically rich.

A little taxes ain't sh** to the wealthy.

I remember watching a documentary where Dominique Strauss Khan said he was at a party attend by plutocrats and he overhead some hedge fund mangers say the government should tax them more. Why?

Because they are making too much damn money.


Tim Cook is going to ask for a tax amnesty day so they don't have to pay taxes bringing their profits back to US.

post #109 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


Really? How about the US circa 1950s where the rich were taxed more than 75%, and it was the most prosperous decade this country had ever seen.

I wasn't alive in 1950 and don't know too much about the tax rates from back then, but a quick Google search just told me that it was 91% back then. That sounds pretty insane.

 

There were other important factors that had to do with why the US was very prosperous in the 1950's. I believe that coming out of WWII as the victors, had a great role to play in that.

post #110 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by "Apple 
[" url="/t/154437/president-obama-calls-apple-ceo-tim-cook-to-discuss-fiscal-cliff/80#post_2234773"]I don't really care about the rest of the world, or people living in mud huts.

That underscores the problem.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #111 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by allenbf View Post

I'm an "idiot" that voted for Obama.  Because I can do math, see? 
 
You can't give tax cuts to the wealthy and then borrow money for two wars.  Clinton had a surplus.  It took Bush just a few years to wipe that off by giving back to the "people" meaning, the richest.  Tax cuts do NOT mean more job growth.  Why do people not understand this?  If you give, let's say, Tim Cook a tax cut, is he going to hire more Apple employees?  No, of course not.  He's going to spend or save the money, it's not rocket science.
 
 
Taxes are at their lowest rates in something like 50 years.  Let the rates go back up to Clinton's levels on the wealthiest of Americans.  

 

Clinton had a surplus - which ironically still added the growing national debt. The last time there was a true reduction in the national debt was in 1957 during Eisenhower administration - known for his spending cuts. 

 

No, honey, ever heard of the dot com bubble Bush inherited from Clinton?  Bush's tax cut applied to everyone, not just the rich. Bush tax cuts while it lasted contributed to the all the jobs created during housing crisis (to use your crazy logic that explained Clinton's surplus).

 

Why not just go after rogue companies like Apple whose effective tax is only 8-something% (GE's only 13%)?

 

And just on more thing: most Americans didn't pay much taxes on their incomes until the payroll tax was first implemented during the WW II (partly aided by none other than Milton Friedman).  For the next two decades or so, Americans continued to pay the war-time tax (90+% for the top bracket - to pay for the military Keynesianism) until JFK's tax cut was implemented in the mid-1960's. 

post #112 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

I find it funny, because elections have consequences, and I believe that many ignorant Obama voters will be far worse off these next four years. For those sorts of people, I have no compassion, and I will mock and laugh at their stupidity as things get progressively worse.

Typical Republican philosophy. You would rather see things get worse for the average person, in fact go out of you way to make it so, just so you can say see, I told you Obama was wrong for this country. People of means are prepared to make it through a recession, many like you ridicule average people as if their meager income is something they deserve and entirely of their own doing. This is why the Republicans lost the election. They are out of touch with reality. Their base is drying up because they can't find enough angry white dudes to support their agenda of hate.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #113 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


Really? How about the US circa 1950s where the rich were taxed more than 75%, and it was the most prosperous decade this country had ever seen.

 

Not sure what your point is..  Back then about 75% of all the federal spending went to the DOD - paying for millions of troops stationed all over the Europe and Asia.

 

Furthermore, unlike now, the country had a fiscal conservative, Eisenhower, constantly fighting to cut gov't spending (vs. "the spender").

post #114 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by "Apple 
[" url="/t/154437/president-obama-calls-apple-ceo-tim-cook-to-discuss-fiscal-cliff/80#post_2234777"]I wasn't alive in 1950 and don't know too much about the tax rates from back then, but a quick Google search just told me that it was 91% back then. That sounds pretty insane.

There were other important factors that had to do with why the US was very prosperous in the 1950's. I believe that coming out of WWII as the victors, had a great role to play in that.

And a fine job they did to pay for that war so that you and I don't have to pay for it some 60-70 years. The Nazis forgot one important thing about world domination, that it's freaking expensive.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #115 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

I disagree with just about everything that you've written. I don't think that I'd want to live in a society such as yours. I also don't think that such a society would produce many innovations in tech, science or in any other fields.

 

I hear that France is going to tax the wealthy at 75%, we'll see how that works out for them. I predict a disaster.

Steve Jobs always said that money was not the great motivator. In a corporate context this has also been proven over and over - higher wage does not equal better or more profitable work. To think that you can buy loyalty and innovation through more money (given that pay is high to start with) shows lack of creativity and human understanding. Only a bad boss thinks that he/ she can improve performance by throwing more money at its managers. 

 

Also US tax rates (top rate) during the 30's were close to 70%, during the 2nd WW it was closer to 90%, and in the 60's and 70's it was back to approx 70%. 

post #116 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by tooltalk View Post

 

Not sure what your point is..  Back then about 75% of all the federal spending went to the DOD - paying for millions of troops stationed all over the Europe and Asia.

 

Furthermore, unlike now, the country had a fiscal conservative, Eisenhower, constantly fighting to cut gov't spending (vs. "the spender").

The US has been waging some very expensive wars for the last decade or two.

post #117 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater View Post

If we are talking about taxing the individuals who are wealthy, why would that affect their companies' decision to hire? It's not like the hiring budget will come out of the owners' salary.

 

Finally! This is always my reaction to this argument but I've never heard anyone else say it.

 

The other thing is that employee wages are tax deductible, right? So a lower tax rate would decrease the incentive to hire staff or make other tax-deductible business purchases like new computers and equipment.

post #118 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by echosonic View Post

The load of BS is almost everything you just said.  The lifeblood of this country is not a series of corporations, it is a plethora of small businesses, and all of them are independent, and all of them rely on every available dime fro growth.

 

Start a company and build something before you open your mouth to say something so stupid again.  You don't have clue what you're talking about.

 

You talk as if "small business owners"* are going to be taxed on revenue. Clearly that's absurd. If they are putting that money back into "growing their business", it's a business expense, and they aren't going to be taxed on it. They are going to be taxed on the amount of money they walk away with in their pockets at the end of each quarter. This is typical of the kind of twisted logic and misleading claims and arguments we've come to expect from the right.

 

 

* The entire label "small business" is entirely misleading. This term includes companies with up to 1500 employees and annual revenues of up to $21.5 million. Emotionally, the term evokes an image of hard working entrepreneurs with a handful of employees. The reality is in many instances not what most of us would think of as "small businesses".

post #119 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by tooltalk View Post

Not sure what your point is..  Back then about 75% of all the federal spending went to the DOD - paying for millions of troops stationed all over the Europe and Asia.

Furthermore, unlike now, the country had a fiscal conservative, Eisenhower, constantly fighting to cut gov't spending (vs. "the spender").

Either he was very frugal or the coffers were so full that 25% was enough to run the country, they're both equally impressive.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #120 of 169
Professor Farnsworth: "The problem with both parties is they want to give your tax dollars to the less fortunate."
Philip J. Fry: "The less fortunate get all the breaks!"

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › President Obama calls Apple CEO Tim Cook to discuss 'fiscal cliff'