alprova said....I understand people with money voting for Republicans, but what I don't understand are people who receive their income from Social Security, who are on Medicare, who hear most Republican politicians state that if it were up to them, they would do away with all "entitlements," voting for the SOB's.
Because you misrepresent the facts. No one has proposed affecting those already receiving social security or Medicare. Because many people recognize the current programs are not all sustainable in the future. Because the average life expectancy has increased by a substantial amount since the Ponzi scheme was founded. Because over the next approximately 20 years there will only be three in the donating category for each in the takers group. Why do you not include the Medicare changes included in the AHCA? Who voted for the SOB's that did that?
The concept of disposable income is very lost on some people.
It certainly is when you and a few others advocate that you or those you deem deserving want to dispose of my income.
inqmind said... "The ones that have much should not have too much and the ones who have little should not have too little."
Karl Marx said something very similar. The writings of men in the bible talked about such things, what did Jesus say? Who said give a man a fish and feed him for a day, teach a many to fish and he can feed himself for life...or something like that. Do we teach people to fish or discourage fishing with food stamps, section 8 housing, subsidized healthcare and various other disincentives to be self sufficient.
inqmind said..From a practical point of view, Having at least two children and raising them in a good home environment requires a decent wage as the numbers show that I mentioned in earlier posts. Having these children educated in highly effective schools by qualified, well paid teachers enhances the chance the children will pursue high-value and productive careers. Such also enhances economic and industrial growth.
What you say is true but nothing in this statement justifies me and others helping fund the raising of those precious rug rats. Those that can afford two or more would have them without assistance from others. The problem is those that can't afford and provide for them often due to prior bad decisions that think they are doing the world a favor by the proliferation of their gene pool then demanding assistance.
inqmind.. Your theory of taxing businesses and increasing prices to enable paying the tax and paying workers more reduces volume and profits from exports and increases the trade imbalance while increasing the incentive for the internationals and others if possible to relocate to another country.
Are you confident a higher wage throughout the employer hierarchy
would cause minimal inflation or would it result in deflation and a depression? When you increase the lowest wage then each level will maintain the same percent differential between levels. The proposed doubling of the lowest wage will result in doubling of the highest wage level and those in between to maintain the margin between levels. This margin is the incentive for people to advance to the more difficult and critical jobs.
inqmind said.. having at least two children ensures there will be wage earners in the future to keep the Social Security fund solvent.
At least you acknowledge that the social security system is a Ponzi scheme. I think it should be eliminated. Madoff and others are in jail for operating in a similar fashion because they didn't have the authority to mandate that new investors invest in their scheme in order to pay the earlier investors. What will it cost those working and their employers when there are only 2-3 working for each one drawing? We will know the answer to that in around 20 years if major changes are not made which cannot be done and be elected to another term.
alprova said......Maybe you ought to listen to them once in awhile. Some of those celebrities have a little more going on upstairs than you appear to have going on at times.
There is another of your opinions that is a result of not agreeing with your bleeding heart liberalism with other peoples money.
inqmind said...(to answer your third q: who create future employees and inventors, parents should be favored as fulfilling not only a theological duty but also a social one),
Do you mean people only have kids to get a tax deduction? It is not a theological requirement to have kids and certainly not a social duty. People will continue adding to the world's over population regardless of the tax system. Are you among those that think marriage and commitment can only exist if a government approves by selling the couple a state license?
Once you increase the lowest paid job compensation level all the levels above that will retain the current percent differential therefore the entire organization from top to bottom will have higher pay rates. The two political parties do more to deter growth and jobs than either contribute. Your approach of just pay everyone more and tax businesses at a standard 20% would create more chaos and inflation than you can imagine. The number at or below the poverty line which would be much higher than currently would not change.
I do think athletes, entertainers, CEO's and upper management in most corporations and unions are vastly over paid and certainly exceed their contribution. Lawyers are parasites. It wouldn't help much but I could accept those making more than one million per year being taxed at a 50% rate of all in excess of one million. The profession that does contribute to peoples well being and society is the most vilified by politicians and people is the medical profession.
alprova loudly shouted....
READ THE NEWS FOR PETE'S SAKE!!
So you think the print media is unbiased and prints only the facts without trying to influence the reader in any way? Do you read and agree with the NYT and Washington Post? Are the TFP & Philadelphia Inquirer recommended reading to get the most accurate news report?
I prefer those sources with no political agenda that care nothing about which party is doing what but reach a conclusion regarding what affect a political agenda is likely to have on investments.
My opinions regarding politics and politicians are mine alone for my own good reasons without influence by the media biases or other opinionated journalist or celebrities that are no more intelligent than the average person but have an audience, the groupies they call fans. They give the impression they think since all these people want to hear what I think I must be pretty smart and have more smarts and an insight they don't have.
alprova said....How often have you TRIED to prove me incorrect and have failed to do so?
I have never tried to prove you incorrect but I have disagreed with your opinion and said so. You have a convenient memory or loss thereof.
So lets set the minimum wage at $18.17 (1.73X10.54), slightly over the cutoff for assistance at 200% of poverty level for a family of 3($17.82).
Why not eliminate the minimum wage requirement and create enough jobs that employers have to pay more to attract people to their jobs?
inq said...Let's set income tax as a fixed percent of income calculated on what is needed to fund the current National Budget.
That would be one major tax increase across the board for both people and corporations.
inqmind said....taking into account the ratio of personal and corporate tax payments , eliminate all deductions except for family dependents, set a minimum corporate tax of 20% and require all industry who have been incorporated in the USA since 1960, and/or who are selling product in the United States to pay on profit from those sales. No deductions.
I assume you mean no deductions other than the direct cost associated with the business? The majority of corporations would agree to that but it would not accomplish your first item of taxing people and businesses equally and sufficient to make tax revenue equal to spending.
Why do you retain deductions for family dependents? Why should I pay more taxes on the same income as you to help you afford the house full of rug rats you decided to spawn? If you are a family of four with under $85,000 annual income why should I subsidize your healthcare policy?
alprova said...There is a problem with what you just typed. I've never declared myself to be any authority on all matters. I know or have learned a great deal about some things of interest to myself, but I do not enter into conversations about things I know nothing about.
There is seldom if ever anything you think you know nothing about.
alprova said...You've become another who inserts false and highly charged statements routinely in this forum lately. It's become a battle to keep you grounded.
I have not posted false statements and if I post something that is unconfirmed I point that out. My opinions such as that I think your POTUS meets the four I criteria of being Inept, Incompetent, Irresponsible, Inconsistent is an opinion that I now feel stronger about than ever while you insist he is close to the second coming and has saved the nation. Two very opposite opinions and you will not sway me with all the talking point blabber the DNC sends you.
same few people writing the same old stuff...
We are not all as imaginative and creative as you are so please demonstrate your creative talent without regard to being totally accurate of course.
You and alprova may have hit on something with your philosophy about business tax rates. To follow your thought process it would seem that all personal income taxes should be eliminated along with many business deductions and every business be required to increase their product cost enough to be profitable, pay a $12.50 minimum wage, provide healthcare for all employees and pay 50% of all profits as taxes including those products or services produced and sold in other countries.
Does that about capture your many musings about how businesses should be treated and if they don't invest and fully utilize all available technology they should fail and die.