Oregon passes tax increases on corporations and the wealthy..

[Mare Tranquillity]

Who hires those workers ? And this is not a chicken / egg thing, the entrepanour comes first every time.

The bailouts were for companies that hire workers and as Obama pointed out last night, unemployment would have soared to double or more sans the bailouts.

As you can see with California, taxing the wealthy is self defeating. They do not have to accept it, they can and do take their bat and ball elsewhere where they are wanted.

Small businesses hire the most workers outside of government. The giant banks and insurance companies don't hire numbers commensurate with their huge bailouts.

 

[dogtowner]

Small businesses hire the most workers outside of government. The giant banks and insurance companies don't hire numbers commensurate with their huge bailouts.

As the president pointed out, had the banks failed they would have taken out those small businesses and citizens across the board regardless of who they worked for or were retired from.

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

There are haves and have nots everywhere and always will be due mainly to the variable nature of humans.

True but when the $$$ money makers/movers/shakers intentionally manipulate the elections/wealth/investments so that us {the worker 'B's} support our economy while keeping our minimum wage suppressed and don't provide any help with the heavy burden of cost of living/health care/utility regulation then you have a suppressed number of people who from their every existence support the upper echelon in our society

And the idea of haves has nothing to do with the caste system (not to be a spelling Nazi as I'm horrible at it but there is an "e" on the end FYI). the closest America comes to that are the union shop states (as opposed to right to work states like mine) where a person is locked out of potential step up jobs via an arbitrary and closed system (not unlike the European model of craft guilds).

But you seem to have gotten the POINT without my putting that silent 'e' there so obviously you are a spelling Nazi...but it seems you have found your niche in life BTW...Nazi is capitalized and so should European...I've corrected those for you Herr Dogtowner, I know you wouldn't want to be in error

There is no end of examples of people breaking out of humble beginnings here and its like nowhere else on earth. Dont forget Bill Gates was a dropout. Ask any immigrant and a big reason they came here is our freedom and opportunity. The world has proven you wrong.

Exactly...they come here from the same type/example of social order that have kept them repressed in their own country...GEE Social Studies wasn't one of you best subjects!

 

[Sihouette]

And if you want to be really proper, all nouns in german, or auf Deutsch as they say, are capitalized.

 

[dogtowner]

True but when the $$$ money makers/movers/shakers intentionally manipulate the elections/wealth/investments so that us {the worker 'B's} support our economy while keeping our minimum wage suppressed and don't provide any help with the heavy burden of cost of living/health care/utility regulation then you have a suppressed number of people who from their every existence support the upper echelon in our society

The market determines wage.

But you seem to have gotten the POINT without my putting that silent 'e' there so obviously you are a spelling Nazi...but it seems you have found your niche in life BTW...Nazi is capitalized and so should European...I've corrected those for you Herr Dogtowner, I know you wouldn't want to be in error

Nazi is capitilized when referring to an actual one, Hitler for example, not as a colloquialism.

Exactly...they come here from the same type/example of social order that have kept them repressed in their own country...GEE Social Studies wasn't one of you best subjects!

Why would they come here if we are no different than where they came from as you suggest ? And why do so many prosper once here ? Because they are motivated unlike many here, and we ARE the land of opportunity despite your class warfare rhetoric.

 

[GenSeneca]

Human culture developed by people working together for their mutual benefit

That is the essence of Capitalism. Individuals living with the freedom to choose their associations in order to arrive at mutually beneficial agreements. That is precisely what I would like to see, volitional associations for mutual benefit, no individual or group being forced to sacrifice for the benefit of another individual or group.

every culture that has relied on the strong raping the weak for profit has collapsed in short order.

That is essence of collectivism - Your philosophy. Individuals are not free to choose their association, they are forcably enslaved to one another, the use of force is employed to eliminate volitional associations from society in order to impose on everyone a collectivist morality of self sacrifice for the benefit (profit) of another. The collectivists are the "rapists", they use force against unarmed, helpless victims to make sure one individual or group benefits at the expense of another individual or group - There is nothing mutually beneficial about collectivism.

 

[GenSeneca]

The rich have a disproportionate amount of the wealth, so YES, we are justified in taking percentage of it for the good of the State.

Here you are trying to justify the use of force against your enemies/victims, you don't even pretend that it's done for mutual benefit, but for the "greater good" of society. You're gang of "Have nots" is bigger than the number of "Have's" so you feel justified in employing the use of force to take whatever you wish at the expense of the "haves" for the benefit of the "have nots", that is not mutually beneficial, that the is concept of "might makes right", which you deny following.

 

[GenSeneca]

I think the main difference between you and me is that I don't mind paying taxes to help people less fortunate than myself... you seem to.

No the difference is you don't mind having a gun to your head forcing you to "help the less fortunate" by way of higher taxes because you agree with the policy of using force to take from one for the benefit of another - nothing mutually beneficial about that.

I do not think anyone should be forced to "help the less fortunate", they should be free to do so voluntarily, and placing a gun to their head and eliminating their choice in the matter is wrong. If a man chooses to "help the less fortunate", it is his right to do so, if he does not get a choice in the matter, if the choice is taken from him by the use of force, then his rights are being violated.

None of you collectivists can deal the idea of leaving individuals free to make these choices on their own, you're afraid people will not make the "right" decision, so you feel justified in using force to eliminate their choice and force them to live up to your collectivist morality - sacrificing themselves, at the point of a gun if necessary, for the benefit of others - Not for a mutually beneficial existence.

 

[GenSeneca]

No. But you're talking to someone who's worked his whole life and never taken a dime of welfare from the government.

No, you don't believe that others are responsible for your debt but you do believe that some (the rich) have a responsibility to pay the debts of others (the poor).

Explain that.

 

[Little-Acorn]

From somewhere the idea that a person deserves everything they can get has taken over our political viewpoint. It's just the newest version

The "somewhere" is called the Declaration of Independence. It declared, among other things, that the only purpose of government was to protect our "unalienable rights", one of which was the right to own property justly acquired. Nothing particularly new about it, except to blinders-on leftists who never noticed it was there... or wished it wasn't.

It was later strengthened with the ratification of a Constitution that forbade the government from taking any property without just compensation, and even that in only a few restricted circumstances. Plus an explicit ban on states impairing the obligations of contracts. Plus a rigorous list of things the Government was allowed to spend tax money on... and "giving tax money to people who you think don't have enough, just because" is carefully not included on that list.

Basically the country was founded on rigorous property rights. This makes the socialism that leftists want, impossible... so the leftists have been violating and/or ignoring this part of the Constitution (plus much more) wherever they can get away with it, and then trying to tell us their malfeasance is "normal" and "legal".

Hope this helps.

 

[dogtowner]

And if you want to be really proper, all nouns in german, or auf Deutsch as they say, are capitalized.

I'll try to remember that if I move there

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

That is the essence of Capitalism. Individuals living with the freedom to choose their associations in order to arrive at mutually beneficial agreements. That is precisely what I would like to see, volitional associations for mutual benefit, no individual or group being forced to sacrifice for the benefit of another individual or group.

That is essence of collectivism - Your philosophy. Individuals are not free to choose their association, they are forcably enslaved to one another, the use of force is employed to eliminate volitional associations from society in order to impose on everyone a collectivist morality of self sacrifice for the benefit (profit) of another. The collectivists are the "rapists", they use force against unarmed, helpless victims to make sure one individual or group benefits at the expense of another individual or group - There is nothing mutually beneficial about collectivism.

You asked me about my belief in a FLAT TAX {that survey on our political beliefs} and we never really got into a discussion about that specific issue. And while I'm not great about who's know more about anything else then anyone else about politics...my beliefs are my own and this is what I firmly believe:
I'm fortunate to live here in this great country of the USA and with that comes some responsibility to pay back for the protection that this country provides for me, infrastructure that I get, the utilities, the mail service, parks & open area recreation sights etc., etc., etc., and hopefully some serious health care reform for all of America.

So I should pay my federal government a flat fee from my wages earned for being able to consume those benefits that I take for granted. No tax filing, No IRS, No Uncle Sam giving me a rebate check at the end of the year...just tax me at the time of my payroll and I owe it, I pay and none of it gets returned because it get allocated to line items on the federal budget spread sheet that I get benefits from. Just as my local municipality has their tax, my local county has their tax and my state has their tax structure...NONE OF US SHOULD BE GETTING REFUNDS, PERIOD.

How will our Federal/State Government ever be able to have a balanced budget if they keep having to return money to residents...simply stated; can't balance a budget if you can ascertain the total dollars coming in are going to be there without the rebates/refunds going back out to certain qualifiers that file for all of those exemptions!

Just boggles my mind that our system has been set up that way. And when my husband gross income, our small business and my 2nd job pulled in the nice yearly sum of $100,000 - $200,000 we never asked for our refunds back...we always thought that our success as small business operators and Americans should be expected to pay back proportionally according to what we could afford. We should have a graduated scale of tax that are owed according to the gross or net income and then it done...no IRS, no big lobbyist of HR BLOCK.

But that's my dream...it would take an act of congress {pun intended} and there would be many kinks that would need to be worked out but it would simplify our taxes, allow our state & federal government to know exactly how much they could allocate per budget line item and keep this system flowing much better then it is currently IMHO WHEW...stepping down off my soap box and taking a break!

 

[ktucan1]

I'm going to throw this out there? Would anyone in this country be complaining if no one was paying taxes? Honestly would any of you on this board have a problem of not paying taxes on anything and for anything?

 

[dogtowner]

I'm going to throw this out there? Would anyone in this country be complaining if no one was paying taxes? Honestly would any of you on this board have a problem of not paying taxes on anything and for anything?

this typical bit of hyperbole is kind of old K.

no one dusputes that taxes are necesary, its IN the Constitution after all.

the issue is that some would have you address every shortfall with a tax increase and not a spending decrease.

lawmakers love to add new spending every time they see any bit of extra revenue with no thought as to what happens if this blip ceases to be.

 

[ktucan1]

this typical bit of hyperbole is kind of old K.

no one dusputes that taxes are necesary, its IN the Constitution after all.

the issue is that some would have you address every shortfall with a tax increase and not a spending decrease.

lawmakers love to add new spending every time they see any bit of extra revenue with no thought as to what happens if this blip ceases to be.

It was just a simple question and yes I know taxes are necessary but still would anyone really care as much as they do if they paid them or not. Look I'm of the side of not paying them in the current fashion however I would like to see a flat tax across the board that applies to everyone and not just a select few. Now is that going to happen I doubt it. I mean who would benefit from a flat tax? Surely not those who make up the tax laws and surely not those who prepare your taxes. What ever excuse anyone would use as to why we shouldn't have a flat tax they would get their point across and we'd still have the same problem that we do today with our tax laws and the loopholes along with them. As for spending well we all know how that goes and they'll be a lot of spending going on this year in the election I promise you that.