Redisribution of wealth----Poll

[jmick]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2594275
WH
wait a minute, it's the corporations that pay YOU. If uncle sam takes more from them what do you suppose will happen to your pay? Kinda sucks getting pushed into the "rich" catagory doesn't it. My wife got a big bonus, she ended up with about half.
Honestly we shouldn't even tax corporations, at least not those based in the US. The money has to go somewhere. The government would still collect their taxes from employees, officers and shareholders. All three of those already pay taxes so you are removing a layer of red tape and regulations but still collecting taxes, and mostly at a higher rate than on the corporate profits.
I'm in your camp about the whole let me pick where it goes. I don't mind one bit ponying up to help someone work their way out of a tough spot. It's the wasted foreign aid and some of the stupid social programs I object to funding.

What about those US based companies who outsource 10's of thousands of jobs to China, Mexico and India? How are we to tax their employees? Do you think if our government stopped taxing business that they'd pass those saving on to you and I? I can't imagine what our taxes would be if we had to foot the whole bill.

 

[groupergenius]

Originally Posted by Jmick
http:///forum/post/2594761
What about those US based companies who outsource 10's of thousands of jobs to China, Mexico and India? How are we to tax their employees? Do you think if our government stopped taxing business that they'd pass those saving on to you and I? I can't imagine what our taxes would be if we had to foot the whole bill.
I only agree with tax breaks if the company keeps all employess, and properties within US borders.

 

[beth]

I'd basically like a flat tax for everyone and then the government will actually have to live within its means.....wow, that will never work out, right.

 

[groupergenius]

Originally Posted by Beth
http:///forum/post/2594790
I'd basically like a flat tax for everyone and then the government will actually have to live within its means.....wow, that will never work out, right.
When you say flat tax...do you mean % or $ amount? Kinda hard to tax folks who aren't working.

 

[beth]

% of annual income. No deductions. Just you owe a % of whatever income you made that year.

 

[pontius]

the oil business is a peculiar thing. I don't think it should be "nationalized" or whatever. but the problem I have with it is why are they making record profits while consumers pay the highest prices ever for oil??? BP and Shell just came out with the first quarterly report for 2008 and if I remember it right, it is the highest profit margin on a quarterly report ever for either company. why is this? does it not stand to reason that consumers shouldn't be paying record high prices if the companies are making record high profits? to me, that goes beyond "capitalism" and into the realm of "price gouging". and I believe that's a crime, is it not? and I understand the high cost and risk associated with drilling for oil. but that's not the issue, the issue is the PROFIT that they are making.
further, because the oil companies have so intwined themselves into our government, it stunts the growth of technology that would not make us so dependant on oil. from what I've understood, the technology has existed for over 40 years to make cars that get 50+ miles per gallon. but of course, the oil companies would see this as a threat and have thier lobbyists complain in Washington, and the technological advances get squashed.
so I think big companies like the oil industy should be forced to stay out of government. that, to me, is not about socialism or "redistribution of wealth", it's about cutting the puppet strings and forcing our government to represent US, and not special interests.

 

[groupergenius]

Originally Posted by Beth
http:///forum/post/2594833
% of annual income. No deductions. Just you owe a % of whatever income you made that year.
OK. But say that is 20%. Does it matter if you make $9800 a year or $9,800,000 a year. Same percentage across the board is what I meant.
One thing I have learned as I have tried to improve the lifestyle of my family, the more I make, the more they take percentage wise.

 

[groupergenius]

Originally Posted by Pontius
http:///forum/post/2594838
the oil business is a peculiar thing. I don't think it should be "nationalized" or whatever. but the problem I have with it is why are they making record profits while consumers pay the highest prices ever for oil??? BP and Shell just came out with the first quarterly report for 2008 and if I remember it right, it is the highest profit margin on a quarterly report ever for either company. why is this? does it not stand to reason that consumers shouldn't be paying record high prices if the companies are making record high profits? to me, that goes beyond "capitalism" and into the realm of "price gouging". and I believe that's a crime, is it not? and I understand the high cost and risk associated with drilling for oil. but that's not the issue, the issue is the PROFIT that they are making.
further, because the oil companies have so intwined themselves into our government, it stunts the growth of technology that would not make us so dependant on oil. from what I've understood, the technology has existed for over 40 years to make cars that get 50+ miles per gallon. but of course, the oil companies would see this as a threat and have thier lobbyists complain in Washington, and the technological advances get squashed.
so I think big companies like the oil industy should be forced to stay out of government. that, to me, is not about socialism or "redistribution of wealth", it's about cutting the puppet strings and forcing our government to represent US, and not special interests.
Oil companies try to say that record profits are because of the price. But their Profit % is the same as it was when gas was $1.20 a gallon.
Higher price at same profit % equals a larger profit number.

 

[aquaknight]

Originally Posted by Pontius
http:///forum/post/2594838
the oil business is a peculiar thing. I don't think it should be "nationalized" or whatever. but the problem I have with it is why are they making record profits while consumers pay the highest prices ever for oil??? BP and Shell just came out with the first quarterly report for 2008 and if I remember it right, it is the highest profit margin on a quarterly report ever for either company. why is this? does it not stand to reason that consumers shouldn't be paying record high prices if the companies are making record high profits? to me, that goes beyond "capitalism" and into the realm of "price gouging". and I believe that's a crime, is it not? and I understand the high cost and risk associated with drilling for oil. but that's not the issue, the issue is the PROFIT that they are making.
further, because the oil companies have so intwined themselves into our government, it stunts the growth of technology that would not make us so dependant on oil. from what I've understood, the technology has existed for over 40 years to make cars that get 50+ miles per gallon. but of course, the oil companies would see this as a threat and have thier lobbyists complain in Washington, and the technological advances get squashed.
so I think big companies like the oil industy should be forced to stay out of government. that, to me, is not about socialism or "redistribution of wealth", it's about cutting the puppet strings and forcing our government to represent US, and not special interests.

Originally Posted by GrouperGenius
http:///forum/post/2594882
Oil companies try to say that record profits are because of the price. But their Profit % is the same as it was when gas was $1.20 a gallon.
Higher price at same profit % equals a larger profit number.
Additionally, oil companies also spend near of the most of any industry trying to get that profit. And as mentioned, they have super high risks. So they should be the ones getting large profits. It's sort of a like buying a low grade Mutual fund, there's a larger return then AA or AAA, but it's darn sure a risk.

 

[beth]

The % would be the same for everyone. Now, the more you make, the higher %, but the more you make, the more deductions you can usually find.

 

[salty blues]

I noticed I left a "t" out of "redistribution" in my thread title. I apologize for the spelling error and shall strive to improve.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by Jmick
http:///forum/post/2594761
What about those US based companies who outsource 10's of thousands of jobs to China, Mexico and India? How are we to tax their employees? Do you think if our government stopped taxing business that they'd pass those saving on to you and I? I can't imagine what our taxes would be if we had to foot the whole bill.
You would still have the majority of corporate officers and stockholders in this country. There could also be a set standard as far as the percentage of the workforce that is US based to be elligable for the 0 tax rate. In either case the money has to go somewhere. It's either going into dividends, wage increases or expansion. All of which generate tax revenue for the feds.
There are already countries in europe that are eliminating corporate taxes. If even they can figure it out
With the dollar so low something like this could be just the ticket to get some of the US manufacturing base back. It's getting awful expensive to import stuff.

 

[reefraff]

Funny thing is all those political types that are griping about oil co profits now were doing nothing to help the companies when oil was under 20 dollars a barrel and the smaller outfits were going broke.

 

[nordy]

To answer the poll, heck no! Help out those who really need it, but socialism has been rightly confined to the dustbin of history. There is an old saying about workers in Communist Russia-"we pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us"

On oil company profits-I heard an interview w/the CEO of Shell yesterday and he commented that their reported billions of latest reported profits represent about 7% on their gross income. Pretty good profit margin, but not what I would call obscene or excessive.

 

[nacl freak]

Jubilie! Old Testament. Every 70 years all debt forgiven.

 

[rylan1]

No, but the rich get richer, and the middle class dwindles, as more go to poverty or check to check.
I have no problem with rich being rich, but something has to be done about reempowering the middle class, and helping those who are in poverty.

 

[nacl freak]

Middle-class is that a myth?

 

[renogaw]

Originally Posted by Beth
http:///forum/post/2594922
The % would be the same for everyone. Now, the more you make, the higher %, but the more you make, the more deductions you can usually find.
do you think someone making 9800 could afford to give 20% of their income away?

 

[devil dog]

TRADITIONAL VERSION:
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.
The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.
Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed. The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.
MORAL OF THE STORY: Be responsible for yourself!
MODERN VERSION
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.
The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.
Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be warm and well fed while others are cold and starving.
CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food.
America is stunned by the sharp contrast.
How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?
Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper, and everybody cries when they sing, 'It's Not Easy Being Green.'
Jesse Jackson stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house where the news stations film the group singing, 'We shall Overcome”. Jesse then has the group kneel down to pray to God for the grasshopper's sake.
Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry & Harry Reid exclaim in an interview with Larry King that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share.
Finally, the EEOC drafts the Economic Equity and Anti-Grasshopper Act retroactive to the beginning of the summer! The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the government.
Hillary Clinton gets her old law firm to represent the grasshopper in a defamation suit against the ant, and the case is tried before a panel of federal judges that Bill Clinton appointed from a list of single-parent welfare recipients.
The ant loses the case.
The story ends as we see the grasshopper finishing up the last bits of the ant's food while the government house he is in, which just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around him because he doesn't maintain it.
The ant has disappeared in the snow.
The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the once peaceful neighborhood.

 

[nacl freak]

Oh how the modern day always improves on the past.