Wait, I thought the Republicans said the rich pay too much taxes

[cubbies]

To fit the "ever got a job from a poor person" line that has been beaten to death.

I'm unaware. To do some odd jobs for $20 could be "a job from a poor person".

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

To fit the "ever got a job from a poor person" line that has been beaten to death.

History has already refuted it by showing what happens when you take money away from the poor. The drop in economic activity kills local businesses and sends unemployment and home foreclosures rippling straight up the economic food chain.


Look up "Le Jacquelope" and "food chain" and you'll see I predicted that... years ago.

 

[tinylittlegnat]

History has already refuted it by showing what happens when you take money away from the poor. The drop in economic activity kills local businesses and sends unemployment and home foreclosures rippling straight up the economic food chain.


Look up "Le Jacquelope" and "food chain" and you'll see I predicted that... years ago.

You also predicted the end of white people and the rise of a black nation. I am not impressed.

However I would rather work for someone who cant pay me overtime but actually gave a damn about my well being than for a company like walmart that makes me work overtime but keeps me off the clock for it or I lose my job. Ahh capitalism.

 

[mark_j]

Raise a 1100% tariff against Latin America, India and China overnight. Across the board. Nothing from goods to services come from there without an automatic 11-fold tax. Plus I'll hire more auditors and customs workers. There'll be people lining out the door to take those jobs and secure us against illegal import dumping. Cut off every possible avenue for employers to send jobs to cheap labor countries without paying that 1100% tariff. This is different from Smoot-Hawley because Smoot-Hawley was an across-the-board tariff against all imports, ever.

You have to be joking right? Anything resembling Smoot-Hawley? Are you for real?

You do remember how well that worked out during the thirties right?

But first I have to wait until the white population has diminished as a proportion to the overall US population so that their Tea Party and Republican / Corporate fucktard allies don't have a strong demographic support to fight me.

Yeah that adds a huge amount of credibility to the argument.. We gots to git rid of all them honkies first...

 

[Sean Renaud]

OK, then what has been stolen from you by the rich?

Debatably 50% of the profits of running my business. I run a fingerprinting company called Acclaim out of Riverside California (go on and google it since I know you dont' believe me) Homeland lowered their prices in Riverside to a point that is only barely sustainable. They can afford it because they've raised their prices or kept them steady in other less competitive markets. Basically they can afford to run at a loss in Riverside until I starve to death because it doesn't really matter as long as they keep doing business in several other cities.

Shall we start citing how many Mom and Pops businesses have similar stories about Walmart?

According to the mantra I did everything right. Worked hard, saved my money (nearly 20k which for a 23 year old is damn good) started a business. Worked hard at being the best, best service, best speed, best customer relations. All of that doesn't matter because I can't afford to run at a loss because this is my business, not my side business, not my hobby, not something I run on the side but my business. This is how i put gas in my car and food on my table.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

You also predicted the end of white people and the rise of a black nation. I am not impressed.

I wouldn't expect you to be impressed by a prediction of the rise of a black nation or a prediction of the end of white people. Especially since I never predicted either thing coming to pass.

What I did predict is that by 2050 whites will no longer be the majority rule in this country and that their Republican-style Conservative politics will be an outcast mentality in America by then. That's worlds different than you misinterpreting what I said to be "the end of white people" and "the rise of a black nation"...

However I don't expect an apology. People on Lit don't apologize when they're in error.

You have to be joking right? Anything resembling Smoot-Hawley? Are you for real?

You do remember how well that worked out during the thirties right?

Of course I do, And if your reading comprehension wasn't so piss poor, you'd see that what I actually said was my tariff approach would be quite different from Smoot-Hawley. But you, being a GBer and perhaps also a dyslexic, probably didn't grasp that. You saw "Smoot Hawley" and went ballistic.

 

[richard_daily]

Debatably 50% of the profits of running my business. I run a fingerprinting company called Acclaim out of Riverside California (go on and google it since I know you dont' believe me) Homeland lowered their prices in Riverside to a point that is only barely sustainable. They can afford it because they've raised their prices or kept them steady in other less competitive markets. Basically they can afford to run at a loss in Riverside until I starve to death because it doesn't really matter as long as they keep doing business in several other cities.

Shall we start citing how many Mom and Pops businesses have similar stories about Walmart?

According to the mantra I did everything right. Worked hard, saved my money (nearly 20k which for a 23 year old is damn good) started a business. Worked hard at being the best, best service, best speed, best customer relations. All of that doesn't matter because I can't afford to run at a loss because this is my business, not my side business, not my hobby, not something I run on the side but my business. This is how i put gas in my car and food on my table.

And that's pretty much the story across the board. Unless you're in a well-defined niche market, you're taking a hit from corporate america (who then ship the jobs overseas).

And the republicans in congress voted against small businesses yet again... big surprise.

Problem is, the democrats are in bed with the corporations too, but just to a slightly lesser extent.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I am in a well defined niche market that can't be shipped over seas and I'm still taking a hit from corporate America which can afford to run at a loss.

 

[mark_j]

Of course I do, And if your reading comprehension wasn't so piss poor, you'd see that what I actually said was my tariff approach would be quite different from Smoot-Hawley.

I also said "resembling", but then I guess your reading comprehension isn't all that great either. I understood perfectly what your methodology would be and still question, given the track record of that sort of protectionist trade policy if you honestly believe that imposing huge trade tariffs, no matter how you define the criteria, is really going to make that much of a difference. From what I have read, it would seem that a majority of trade economists don't buy into the protectionist model.

As a side note, Smoot_Hawley is a perfect example of a protectionist scheme that failed miserably.

But you, being a GBer and perhaps also a dyslexic, probably didn't grasp that. You saw "Smoot Hawley" and went ballistic.

Yeah okay sparky, I guess if my questioning whether you were serious qualifies as "ballistic" then so be it. Seems to me, considering that you started several other threads on that subject, that you are the one that got all butt hurt about it.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

I also said "resembling"

Resembling. Like the way a car resembles a truck resembles an 18-wheeler? Your use of the word "resembling" shows what a total idiot you are.

Protectionism is why China's economy is BOOMING and why their job market is the envy of the world.

Oh yeah: and your idiotic comments helped me humiliate a large number of GBers, too.

 

[jeninflorida]

One funny side note about taxes, not only do you pay more in taxes the more you earn in terms of total dollar amount, but as one income climes so does tax bracket. The federal government punishes those by higher and higher tax rate.

why not have the tax rate at one rate?

But yet America is becoming a plutonomy - dependent largely on spending by the rich.

What?

If you're being overtaxed then how is your expenditures ALSO amounting to 37% of all consumer spending?

You guessed it, folks. This is a major fatal flaw in Republican supply-side economics: the rich are bleeding the rest of America of its wealth.

But at some point there's only so much of OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY the rich can steal.

http://finance.yahoo.com/family-hom...ncreasingly-tied-to-the-rich#mwpphu-container

U.S. Economy Is Increasingly Tied to the Rich
by Robert Frank
Sunday, August 1, 2010

Who cares how the rich spend their money?

Well, perhaps everyone should these days. Consumer spending accounts for roughly two-thirds of U.S. gross domestic product, or the value of all goods and services produced in the nation. And spending by the rich now accounts for the largest share of consumer outlays in at least 20 years.

According to new research from Moody's Analytics, the top 5% of Americans by income account for 37% of all consumer outlays. Outlays include consumer spending, interest payments on installment debt and transfer payments.

[See Ways to Save on Restaurants, Travel, and More]

By contrast, the bottom 80% by income account for 39.5% of all consumer outlays.

It is no surprise, of course, that the rich spend so much, since they earn a disproportionate share of income. According to economists Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty, the top 10% of earners captured about half of all income as of 2007.

What is surprising is just how much or our consumer economy is now dependent on the rich, and how that share has increased as the U.S. emerges from recession. In the third quarter of 1990, the top 5% accounted for 25% of consumer outlays. That held relatively steady until the mid-1990s, when it started inching up past 30%. It dipped in 2003 and again in 2008, but started surging in 2009 amid the greatest bull market rally in history, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average rising nearly 50% in the last nine months of the year.

Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody's Analytics, cites two main reasons for the increase. First, the wealthy panicked during the financial crisis and stopped spending. When markets rebounded, they came out of their shells and started spending again. "I think that pent-up demand was unleashed," he said. "It was an unusually high rate of spending."

[See 21 Things You Should Never Buy New ]

The second reason is that those people in the middle- and lower-income groups are struggling to pay off debt and stay afloat amid rising unemployment, as Friday's data reminds us. That has crimped their spending.

The data may be a further sign that the U.S. is becoming a plutonomy–an economy dependent on the spending and investing of the wealthy. And plutonomies are far less stable than economies built on more evenly distributed income and mass consumption. "I don't think it's healthy for the economy to be so dependent on the top 2% of the income distribution," Mr. Zandi said. He added that, "In the near term it highlights the fragility of the recovery."

In fact, the recent spending of the wealthy may be unsustainable. Their savings rate has gone from more than 26% in 2008 to a negative 7% in the first quarter of 2010, according to the Moody's Analytics data. They still have lots of savings. But the massive draw on that in the past two years is unlikely to continue at the same pace.

"I think we're already seeing a slowdown in spending by this group," Mr. Zandi says.

And that should be a worry for all of us.

 

[mark_j]

Resembling. Like the way a car resembles a truck resembles an 18-wheeler? Your use of the word "resembling" shows what a total idiot you are.

Oh I see.. Well I can't argue with convoluted logic like that. Kind of like Apples, Oranges and Pears. All are fruits and all come from a tree.

The devil is in the details..

Protectionism is why China's economy is BOOMING and why their job market is the envy of the world.

Sure if you want to work in near sweatshop conditions for the equivalent of $160 a month. Yeah that should be the envy of everyone.

Oh yeah: and your idiotic comments helped me humiliate a large number of GBers, too.

Only in your mind...

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

Oh I see.. Well I can't argue with convoluted logic like that. Kind of like Apples, Oranges and Pears. All are fruits and all come from a tree.

The devil is in the details..

Well, you're the one who said that my tariff policies resemble Smoot-Hawley. The only way you can support that claim is by using the same "logic" that says apples resemble oranges resemble pears.

Sure if you want to work in near sweatshop conditions for the equivalent of $160 a month. Yeah that should be the envy of everyone.

If it isn't now, it will be soon: our wage levels are the #1 cause of offshoring, remember? The overpaid, lazy American and all that.

Here's a clue for you: it's impossible to lose in the free trade game when your country has the lowest wages in the game.

What is China's trade deficit? What is its international debt? Who owns their currency?

Only in your mind...

You yourself admit your logic was crap.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

Another day, another bitchslapped right winger...

 

[Luk]

Another day, another bitchslapped right winger...

You're an IT Manager and didn't know you could post to the web on a cell phone. STFU.

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=723158

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?p=34922198#post34922198

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=34945562&postcount=55

 

[eyer]

Oh you are one of those annoying posters. please develop a personality and then get back to me.

"develop a personality"?

Of what?

A f*cking banana?

You're kidding, right?

And really, what can be more annoying than a tinylittlegnat?

 

[richard_daily]

I am in a well defined niche market that can't be shipped over seas and I'm still taking a hit from corporate America which can afford to run at a loss.

And in all honesty, it's probably a tax write-off for them.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

And in all honesty, it's probably a tax write-off for them.

I believe the term is 'loss leader'.