So if you're left-leaning, shouldn't the obvious conclusion from this article be that Apple needs to pay more taxes?
We always hear that Apple has x billion in cash, but it is never stated where the cash is. What about all the money they have overseas? They don't bring that money back to the states because they don't want to pay taxes on it.
But are you happy to have the services cut too? Buh-bye police, courts, roads, airports...
Yes.
I think the police are largely fine (although, where I live, they have nothing to do except hand out traffic tickets for going 5 miles over the speed limit), but our court system is inefficient and wasteful and could be cut quite a bit, and we have too many uneconomical 'rural' airports.
I do, however, believe that the wrong time to cut is now -- that simply takes demand out of the economy when it's still teetering. We do need a crediblelong-term deficit reduction plan.
Hmm, could a balanced budget amendment be needed in D.C.?!
Just say NO to raising the US debt limit! The economy is in the toilet, the last thing we need is more government inflation -- read as HIDDEN TAXES EVERTIME THEY PRINT MONEY OR DIGITALLY ADD ZEROS TO THEIR BALANCE SHEET!
Did you know "democracy" does not appear even ONCE in the Constitution?! For a very good reason, the US is not now, and never has been a democracy. We merely democratically elect our representatives. The US is a republic, if we can keep it.
Did you know "democracy" does not appear even ONCE in the Constitution?! For a very good reason, the US is not now, and never has been a democracy. We merely democratically elect our representatives. The US is a republic, if we can keep it.
What a bunch of narrow minded people there is on here shame on you......some people are born into opportunity, some people are not, some people fight for opportunity but simply some people are genuinely stuck........just remember not everybody can be like you....and you should be grateful for what you have and don't pick on the people who can't have what you have.
Common misunderstanding among liberals.
"rich" people create their opportunities while "poor" people wait for opportunities to be handed to them.
I know "poor" people who were born into "poor" families.
I know "poor" people who were born into "rich" families.
I know "rich" people who were born into "poor" families.
I know "rich" people who were born into "rich" families.
The starting position is fairly irrelevant. It is the mindset that dictates success.
You mean Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid? Is this what you call luxury items? And what about the simple idea of stopping Medicare for those that can actually afford it (eg, the upper 50% of the population). If richer half of the people complain about their taxes, they should equally accept to get no handouts from the government.
Another liberal fallacy used to slander conservative ideas.
First off, I am FORCED to pay into services like Social Security and as a result I am *entitled* to get a return on my money.
I would gladly give up Social Security in a heart beat.
Social Security gives a 0% return on investment. A smart person could easily get +4%
On a side note, 80% of "poor" households can afford cable/satellite TV.
On another side note the average "poor" family in America has the same living space as the *average* family in Europe.
Its sad that liberals like to think that we have people dying in the streets and we need to raise taxes when in fact we (taxpayers) are subsidizing luxury items for a population that has an unparalleled quality of life.
It is laughable that you praise government run health care in europe when you cannot even get a procedure to save your life. Why do leaders from around the wold come to AMERICA for health care?
(hint: because no matter what the UN says America is #1)
Because
Social Security is capped because the payments are capped.
I pay in, i take out.
It was never intended to redistribute wealth like the progressive income tax.
There is no reason to remove the cap unless you also remove the cap for payments.
Not really sure how any taxpayer can defend a system where we spend a trillion dollars a year to subsidize cable TV for the "poor" or that 2nd TV/DVD player.
90% of those items are luxury items.
I am not arguing that we should get ride of taxes. Quite the contrary. Its just when people bitch about the "rich" they really do not understand the economics of it all.
If you really want to get into a tax debate we can do that.
99% of the spending problem in D.C. is because of the overreach by the federal government and the perversion of the commerce clause.
It would be much more effective to return the power to tax and spend to the states to let them decide what is in their best interest be it education or medical marijuana. Right now we send huge portions of out income to the federal government which is then returned to the states who are then told how to spend it. This is the opposite of how the country was setup. The problem now is that the federal government has grown so large that it limits the amount the states can tax.
Taxing (and spending) power must be returned to the states. It would end gridlock as each state would operate at its own pace while spurring competition between states.
When asking if the federal government should be doing something, it should first be determined if the state can do that role. If so, then that job should be delegated to the state. If it is something outlined in the constitution or something a state cannot do (like national defense) then it should be delegated to the federal government.
We then could lower taxes at the federal level to a flat tax, say 10% across the board - no deductions while increasing local taxes (if the state/county/city chooses).
Look at a state like California. For every dollar we send to D.C. for services we get less than 70 cents back and most of that is earmarked for pet projects like no child left behind.
/rant
You mean most of the poor have a 'luxury' like a refrigerator?
What 'lucky duckies.' I keep our perishables in our toilet tank to keep them cool.
That's right. We have the 'luxury' of a toilet. Lucky us.
"rich" people create their opportunities while "poor" people wait for opportunities to be handed to them.
I know "poor" people who were born into "poor" families.
I know "poor" people who were born into "rich" families.
I know "rich" people who were born into "poor" families.
I know "rich" people who were born into "rich" families.
The starting position is fairly irrelevant. It is the mindset that dictates success.
The abilities and mindset can help a poor person claw their way up. And can destroy a rich person who's given everything. However when a smart and dedicated person comes from, say, a single-parent working-class family in Appalachia, where his mother makes less per year than his college tuition, such that that person has to take out loans (which, thanks to the GOP now compound the interest annually) because goddess forbid we should all start life on an equal footing; and then that person also has to take out loans to go through grad school and law school -- all while his peers are getting tuition paid for by daddy, plus a car, and maybe even a nice condo during grad school so they don't have to worry about working for rent money -- such that one person graduates with $150,000 in debt, and the other person graduates with no debt and maybe a new car or house or nice trust fund...
then no, position is not irrelevant. I should know.
I think the police are largely fine (although, where I live, they have nothing to do except hand out traffic tickets for going 5 miles over the speed limit), but our court system is inefficient and wasteful and could be cut quite a bit, and we have too many uneconomical 'rural' airports..
Which part of our overburdended, back-logged court system would you like to cut? The part where accused defendants sit in jails for months awaiting trials before they're found innocent? The part where victims of domestic abuse have to live in hiding for days or weeks just to get a TRO? Every court action has a plaintiff and a defendant, which means someone either seeking redress for a wrong, or seeking to prevent a wrong from happening to them. Which of these people should be told that your court system has no time for them?
On a side note, 80% of "poor" households can afford cable/satellite TV.
On another side note the average "poor" family in America has the same living space as the *average* family in Europe.
Its sad that liberals like to think that we have people dying in the streets and we need to raise taxes when in fact we (taxpayers) are subsidizing luxury items for a population that has an unparalleled quality of life.
So if I get your statistics right, only the top 3% of the bottom 50% pay any taxes. Doing the math, that's about 1% of the taxes for each percent of the (48-50%) population. When we jump over to the top 50%, it averages out to about 2% of the taxes for each percent of the population.
So the top 3% of these not-so-wealthy folks ponied up about 1% of the total taxes for each of their 3%. And the 50% of folks making more than the median.
And the top 50% -- those making more than $50K come across with just about twice the tax bite.
I do, however, believe that the wrong time to cut is now -- that simply takes demand out of the economy when it's still teetering. We do need a crediblelong-term deficit reduction plan.
I disagree with you on the previous point, but I strongly agree here. Our deficit is absolutely too large, and we need to address that. Budget cuts should happen, well-planned, over time, and best when the economy is good. Trying to cut out trillions of dollars overnight just drops everyone into a state of chaos.
I know "poor" people who were born into "poor" families.
I know "poor" people who were born into "rich" families.
I know "rich" people who were born into "poor" families.
I know "rich" people who were born into "rich" families.
The starting position is fairly irrelevant. It is the mindset that dictates success.
Bull.
Your anecdotal story of knowing people who have gone either side does not make it standard. I hear this *all* the time from Fox News and being quoted in this forum. 99% of welfare recipients are in strong need. But someone will put out a random individual edge case and use it to try apply to the entire batch: "LOOK AT THIS PERSON! THEY SPENT $800 ON LOBSTER!" Therefore, all welfare recipients are lame.
But that's not how it works. Less than 1% (ONE PERCENT) of those who are born into families on the poverty line make it out of living their lives in poverty. Less than 0.02% (ZERO POINT ZERO TWO PERCENT) of those same people become classified as "wealthy."
I mean, mindset is great, and Americans all love rags to riches stories, but claiming that all these "poor people" need to do is change their mindset to be "rich" is utter crap. They have to fight their entire lives, and then they get people like yourself quoting studies showing how "well off" they have it because they have refrigerators, microwaves, and ceiling fans, or that poor people in America have more living space than middle class Europeans. (Which is a total nonsequitor : rich people in Manhattan have way less living space than poor people in Texas... Europeans value location more than space, so it's a total apples-to-oranges argument).
I simply don't understand this war on poverty from the right.
Comments
So if you're left-leaning, shouldn't the obvious conclusion from this article be that Apple needs to pay more taxes?
We always hear that Apple has x billion in cash, but it is never stated where the cash is. What about all the money they have overseas? They don't bring that money back to the states because they don't want to pay taxes on it.
But are you happy to have the services cut too? Buh-bye police, courts, roads, airports...
Yes.
I think the police are largely fine (although, where I live, they have nothing to do except hand out traffic tickets for going 5 miles over the speed limit), but our court system is inefficient and wasteful and could be cut quite a bit, and we have too many uneconomical 'rural' airports.
I do, however, believe that the wrong time to cut is now -- that simply takes demand out of the economy when it's still teetering. We do need a credible long-term deficit reduction plan.
Just say NO to raising the US debt limit! The economy is in the toilet, the last thing we need is more government inflation -- read as HIDDEN TAXES EVERTIME THEY PRINT MONEY OR DIGITALLY ADD ZEROS TO THEIR BALANCE SHEET!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy
Being a Republic doesn't mean there's no Democracy.
Did you know "democracy" does not appear even ONCE in the Constitution?! For a very good reason, the US is not now, and never has been a democracy. We merely democratically elect our representatives. The US is a republic, if we can keep it.
Don't pretend you think he stated pure democracy.
What a bunch of narrow minded people there is on here shame on you......some people are born into opportunity, some people are not, some people fight for opportunity but simply some people are genuinely stuck........just remember not everybody can be like you....and you should be grateful for what you have and don't pick on the people who can't have what you have.
Common misunderstanding among liberals.
"rich" people create their opportunities while "poor" people wait for opportunities to be handed to them.
I know "poor" people who were born into "poor" families.
I know "poor" people who were born into "rich" families.
I know "rich" people who were born into "poor" families.
I know "rich" people who were born into "rich" families.
The starting position is fairly irrelevant. It is the mindset that dictates success.
You mean Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid? Is this what you call luxury items? And what about the simple idea of stopping Medicare for those that can actually afford it (eg, the upper 50% of the population). If richer half of the people complain about their taxes, they should equally accept to get no handouts from the government.
Another liberal fallacy used to slander conservative ideas.
First off, I am FORCED to pay into services like Social Security and as a result I am *entitled* to get a return on my money.
I would gladly give up Social Security in a heart beat.
Social Security gives a 0% return on investment. A smart person could easily get +4%
The top 50% pay 97.3% of all taxes.
The bottom 50% pay 2.7% of all taxes.
47% pay *nothing*.
On a side note, 80% of "poor" households can afford cable/satellite TV.
On another side note the average "poor" family in America has the same living space as the *average* family in Europe.
Its sad that liberals like to think that we have people dying in the streets and we need to raise taxes when in fact we (taxpayers) are subsidizing luxury items for a population that has an unparalleled quality of life.
Thank you, Mr. Beck.
The top 10% pay 70% of all federal income tax receipts.
http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html
It is laughable that you praise government run health care in europe when you cannot even get a procedure to save your life. Why do leaders from around the wold come to AMERICA for health care?
(hint: because no matter what the UN says America is #1)
Because
Social Security is capped because the payments are capped.
I pay in, i take out.
It was never intended to redistribute wealth like the progressive income tax.
There is no reason to remove the cap unless you also remove the cap for payments.
Not really sure how any taxpayer can defend a system where we spend a trillion dollars a year to subsidize cable TV for the "poor" or that 2nd TV/DVD player.
90% of those items are luxury items.
I am not arguing that we should get ride of taxes. Quite the contrary. Its just when people bitch about the "rich" they really do not understand the economics of it all.
If you really want to get into a tax debate we can do that.
99% of the spending problem in D.C. is because of the overreach by the federal government and the perversion of the commerce clause.
It would be much more effective to return the power to tax and spend to the states to let them decide what is in their best interest be it education or medical marijuana. Right now we send huge portions of out income to the federal government which is then returned to the states who are then told how to spend it. This is the opposite of how the country was setup. The problem now is that the federal government has grown so large that it limits the amount the states can tax.
Taxing (and spending) power must be returned to the states. It would end gridlock as each state would operate at its own pace while spurring competition between states.
When asking if the federal government should be doing something, it should first be determined if the state can do that role. If so, then that job should be delegated to the state. If it is something outlined in the constitution or something a state cannot do (like national defense) then it should be delegated to the federal government.
We then could lower taxes at the federal level to a flat tax, say 10% across the board - no deductions while increasing local taxes (if the state/county/city chooses).
Look at a state like California. For every dollar we send to D.C. for services we get less than 70 cents back and most of that is earmarked for pet projects like no child left behind.
/rant
You mean most of the poor have a 'luxury' like a refrigerator?
What 'lucky duckies.' I keep our perishables in our toilet tank to keep them cool.
That's right. We have the 'luxury' of a toilet. Lucky us.
Another liberal fallacy used to slander conservative ideas.
Conservatives don't have ideas. Ideas can lead to change and therefore they are a scary thing liberals do. Perhaps you meant conservative ideals.
You really aren't very smart, are you?
What he said makes sense. What you said is a baseless dig. And you're in Kansas. So I'll side with him on this one.
Common misunderstanding among liberals.
"rich" people create their opportunities while "poor" people wait for opportunities to be handed to them.
I know "poor" people who were born into "poor" families.
I know "poor" people who were born into "rich" families.
I know "rich" people who were born into "poor" families.
I know "rich" people who were born into "rich" families.
The starting position is fairly irrelevant. It is the mindset that dictates success.
The abilities and mindset can help a poor person claw their way up. And can destroy a rich person who's given everything. However when a smart and dedicated person comes from, say, a single-parent working-class family in Appalachia, where his mother makes less per year than his college tuition, such that that person has to take out loans (which, thanks to the GOP now compound the interest annually) because goddess forbid we should all start life on an equal footing; and then that person also has to take out loans to go through grad school and law school -- all while his peers are getting tuition paid for by daddy, plus a car, and maybe even a nice condo during grad school so they don't have to worry about working for rent money -- such that one person graduates with $150,000 in debt, and the other person graduates with no debt and maybe a new car or house or nice trust fund...
then no, position is not irrelevant. I should know.
I think the police are largely fine (although, where I live, they have nothing to do except hand out traffic tickets for going 5 miles over the speed limit), but our court system is inefficient and wasteful and could be cut quite a bit, and we have too many uneconomical 'rural' airports..
Which part of our overburdended, back-logged court system would you like to cut? The part where accused defendants sit in jails for months awaiting trials before they're found innocent? The part where victims of domestic abuse have to live in hiding for days or weeks just to get a TRO? Every court action has a plaintiff and a defendant, which means someone either seeking redress for a wrong, or seeking to prevent a wrong from happening to them. Which of these people should be told that your court system has no time for them?
The top 50% pay 97.3% of all taxes.
The bottom 50% pay 2.7% of all taxes.
47% pay *nothing*.
On a side note, 80% of "poor" households can afford cable/satellite TV.
On another side note the average "poor" family in America has the same living space as the *average* family in Europe.
Its sad that liberals like to think that we have people dying in the streets and we need to raise taxes when in fact we (taxpayers) are subsidizing luxury items for a population that has an unparalleled quality of life.
So if I get your statistics right, only the top 3% of the bottom 50% pay any taxes. Doing the math, that's about 1% of the taxes for each percent of the (48-50%) population. When we jump over to the top 50%, it averages out to about 2% of the taxes for each percent of the population.
According to the US Census -- http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/acsbr09-2.pdf --
Real median household income in the United
States fell between the 2008 and 2009 ACS?
decreasing by 2.9 percent from $51,726 to
$50,221.
So the top 3% of these not-so-wealthy folks ponied up about 1% of the total taxes for each of their 3%. And the 50% of folks making more than the median.
And the top 50% -- those making more than $50K come across with just about twice the tax bite.
Where do I misinterpret your figures?
Conservatives don't have ideas. Ideas can lead to change and therefore they are a scary thing liberals do. Perhaps you meant conservative ideals.
It's really liberals that want the status quo these days (take the budget battle for example). The sides need to change designations!
I do, however, believe that the wrong time to cut is now -- that simply takes demand out of the economy when it's still teetering. We do need a credible long-term deficit reduction plan.
I disagree with you on the previous point, but I strongly agree here. Our deficit is absolutely too large, and we need to address that. Budget cuts should happen, well-planned, over time, and best when the economy is good. Trying to cut out trillions of dollars overnight just drops everyone into a state of chaos.
I know "poor" people who were born into "poor" families.
I know "poor" people who were born into "rich" families.
I know "rich" people who were born into "poor" families.
I know "rich" people who were born into "rich" families.
The starting position is fairly irrelevant. It is the mindset that dictates success.
Bull.
Your anecdotal story of knowing people who have gone either side does not make it standard. I hear this *all* the time from Fox News and being quoted in this forum. 99% of welfare recipients are in strong need. But someone will put out a random individual edge case and use it to try apply to the entire batch: "LOOK AT THIS PERSON! THEY SPENT $800 ON LOBSTER!" Therefore, all welfare recipients are lame.
But that's not how it works. Less than 1% (ONE PERCENT) of those who are born into families on the poverty line make it out of living their lives in poverty. Less than 0.02% (ZERO POINT ZERO TWO PERCENT) of those same people become classified as "wealthy."
I mean, mindset is great, and Americans all love rags to riches stories, but claiming that all these "poor people" need to do is change their mindset to be "rich" is utter crap. They have to fight their entire lives, and then they get people like yourself quoting studies showing how "well off" they have it because they have refrigerators, microwaves, and ceiling fans, or that poor people in America have more living space than middle class Europeans. (Which is a total nonsequitor : rich people in Manhattan have way less living space than poor people in Texas... Europeans value location more than space, so it's a total apples-to-oranges argument).
I simply don't understand this war on poverty from the right.