#1 spending is defitely on "defense" ... will a republican ever cut spending in that department? ... so, in all likelihood - mccain will cut spending on things like education or health care or something of that nature ...
I'm confused. you make a million a year? if you paid less taxes u could make it? so why are u ok with higher taxes?
No, we don't make a million $ a year profit, but we have 2000+ acres and it takes a million $ per year to make it work...the past four years we have been operating at a loss... this year looks better
I'm sorry you can't relate.
If we make a profit of over $75000 we are taxed the same as corporate farms that bring in millions.
I'm saying they have more advantages because they make more money than I do. If I don't make $200,000 (living income) this year I may have to apply for assistance again this year or be forced to make other career changes.
If you are wealthy in this country you really have to screw the pooch not to stay wealthy. Every program is designed to help the wealthy stay wealthy in this country.
Two years ago after hurricane Katrina, we applied for soybean rust aid and got a $10000 relief check. That didn't even cover but 400 acres out of 5000 acres we had problems in. We were told the money wasn't there and we were fortunate to get what we did. Corporate farms X nationwide got over $63,000,000 (that's 63 million) for soybean rust assistance from the hurricane. That's how your tax dollars work... mostly helping the wealthy and not the poor.... my farms could dry up and no one cares it's a drop in the bucket.... but let the big farms go down and it's a national crisis (I understand this) but if they go to market with 200 million bushels they're going to operate at quite a substantially less profit margin than I can therefore they can essentially put me out of business over the course of a few years. Since they already hire cheap and sometimes illegal labor that they don't pay taxes for I don't think they should be given tax breaks that places them at a distinct advantage over me. Point is the Corporations should pay more taxes OR be accountable for being more fiscally responsible in the market in a fairness to all scenarion (which of course will never happen) and they need to be held accountable for pissing all over monopoly and other trade laws.
Obama and McCain are different. even if both their foreign policies suck, think domestically. The president appoints DOJ members, Supreme Court Justices, judges, etc... right now, the law in the U.S. is being incredibly abused by members of the DOJ, the attorney generals were/are all insane... atleast Obama will significantly change domestic law.
Obama and McCain are different. even if both their foreign policies suck, think domestically. The president appoints DOJ members, Supreme Court Justices, judges, etc... right now, the law in the U.S. is being incredibly abused by members of the DOJ, the attorney generals were/are all insane... atleast Obama will significantly change domestic law.
:eek:
what i want to know is who in the hell took over outlaw's username?!
seriously, while i may not agree on all points per se....i agree overall, in theory. just shocked to see a nader supporter so clearly and definitively....and finally acknowledge the differences, and the importance of such.
thats simply not true. do you have prove to back this up? of course not. but you didnt answer my question. why should they pay more?
the proof is the 1980's. it amazes me that people still think reagan's trickle down economics bullshit is sound economics.
the fact is, american capitalism as we know it is dying. we cannot compete with foreign markets anymore. wage gaps over the last 8 years have been increasing at alarming rates. this is dangerous. we are dependent on a service economy, and that means we need a wide base of consumers. that means we need broad wealth. the middle and lower classes are being gutted as the money goes UP, not trickles down. we're headed for catastrophe if we cling to this belief that somehow not taxing INDIVIDUAL income (those rich people use their personal income for stock investment, not job expansion in their companies) will resurrect or maintain our economy. the current approach to taxes is just like a store burning through inventory before closing. we're just cutting our losses and anyone who thinks otherwise is blind.
No, we don't make a million $ a year profit, but we have 20000+ acres and it takes a million $ per year to make it work...the past four years we have been operating at a loss... this year looks better
I'm sorry you can't relate.
If we make a profit of over $75000 we are taxed the same as corporate farms that bring in millions.
I'm saying they have more advantages because they make more money than I do. If I don't make $200,000 (living income) this year I may have to apply for assistance again this year or be forced to make other career changes.
If you are wealthy in this country you really have to screw the pooch not to stay wealthy. Every program is designed to help the wealthy stay wealthy in this country.
Two years ago after hurricane Katrina, we applied for soybean rust aid and got a $10000 relief check. That didn't even cover but 400 acres out of 5000 acres we had problems in. We were told the money wasn't there and we were fortunate to get what we did. Corporate farms X nationwide got over $63,000,000 (that's 63 million) for soybean rust assistance from the hurricane. That's how your tax dollars work... mostly helping the wealthy and not the poor.... my farms could dry up and no one cares it's a drop in the bucket.... but let the big farms go down and it's a national crisis (I understand this) but if they go to market with 200 million bushels they're going to operate at quite a substantially less profit margin than I can therefore they can essentially put me out of business over the course of a few years. Since they already hire cheap and sometimes illegal labor that they don't pay taxes for I don't think they should be given tax breaks that places them at a distinct advantage over me. Point is the Corporations should pay more taxes OR be accountable for being more fiscally responsible in the market in a fairness to all scenarion (which of course will never happen) and they need to be held accountable for pissing all over monopoly and other trade laws.
...just sayin
I can relate, I just didnt understand what u meant at first, now I do. thank you for clarifying.
but a farm that makes a million a year does pay more in taxes then you. by % and by dollar amount. does it not?
Catch-22 is simply a no win situation -- and i think in my case (like the movie) there is circular logic as i want the pres to not be a rebulican, but the one who speaks about change has no experience, but the one with experience does not know where he is when he lands, so i go with the other option, but he will hurt my wallet, so i go with the rebublican, and we start all over again.
as for not voting for either of them, i am in jersey, so that is an option since my vote is practically meaningless.
the proof is the 1980's. it amazes me that people still think reagan's trickle down economics bullshit is sound economics.
the fact is, american capitalism as we know it is dying. we cannot compete with foreign markets anymore. wage gaps over the last 8 years have been increasing at alarming rates. this is dangerous. we are dependent on a service economy, and that means we need a wide base of consumers. that means we need broad wealth. the middle and lower classes are being gutted as the money goes UP, not trickles down. we're headed for catastrophe if we cling to this belief that somehow not taxing INDIVIDUAL income (those rich people use their personal income for stock investment, not job expansion in their companies) will resurrect or maintain our economy. the current approach to taxes is just like a store burning through inventory before closing. we're just cutting our losses and anyone who thinks otherwise is blind.
and when has tax and spend worked? I'm not saying trickle down ploicy is the answer. I'm not here promoting McCain's tax ideas. he has promised to not raise taxes and cut spending. do I think he will? probably not. I do know however that Obama will raise taxes for the rich and increase spending. an utter disaster IMO
and when has tax and spend worked? I'm not saying trickle down ploicy is the answer. I'm not here promoting McCain's tax ideas. he has promised to not raise taxes and cut spending. do I think he will? probably not. I do know however that Obama will raise taxes for the rich and increase spending. an utter disaster IMO
"tax and spend" worked ok for clinton. shit, he managed a balanced budget when he had the help of republicans who actually knew how to address spending. the line item veto should never have been overruled. but he wasn't exactly axing important federal programs to do it.
i've not heard the specifics of obama's plans, but i'm wondering how much increased spending we're talking versus taxes. i also suspect some of the "increased" spending is simply going to be moving some funding from defense to education and the like. unless you're talking about universal health care, which i'm sure will never get off the ground.
in any case, i'm all for the prospect that maybe we'll take in as much as we spend regardless of the wisdom of high spending, a balanced budget is better than crippling debt. and i know for a fact spending will increase on mccain's watch as much as ever. i prefer a real attempt to balance a budget to more republican bullshit pipe dreams like "we'll reduce spending, i swear! just vote for this huge tax cut for the top 5% first!"
I can relate, I just didnt understand what u meant at first, now I do. thank you for clarifying.
but a farm that makes a million a year does pay more in taxes then you. by % and by dollar amount. does it not?
Yes they pay more $$$ but the % has been the same or less since 2002, plus naturally they don't tax federal assistance or such huge windfalls... this goes for most corporate government handouts
Yes they pay more $$$ but the % has been the same or less since 2002, plus naturally they don't tax federal assistance or such huge windfalls... this goes for most corporate government handouts
hmmm so the tax % for businesses is the same for those that make 75k or 1 million?
"tax and spend" worked ok for clinton. shit, he managed a balanced budget when he had the help of republicans who actually knew how to address spending. the line item veto should never have been overruled. but he wasn't exactly axing important federal programs to do it.
i've not heard the specifics of obama's plans, but i'm wondering how much increased spending we're talking versus taxes. i also suspect some of the "increased" spending is simply going to be moving some funding from defense to education and the like. unless you're talking about universal health care, which i'm sure will never get off the ground.
in any case, i'm all for the prospect that maybe we'll take in as much as we spend regardless of the wisdom of high spending, a balanced budget is better than crippling debt. and i know for a fact spending will increase on mccain's watch as much as ever. i prefer a real attempt to balance a budget to more republican bullshit pipe dreams like "we'll reduce spending, i swear! just vote for this huge tax cut for the top 5% first!"
I wouldnt put clinton in the tax and spend category but he was lucky enough to be around doing the tech boom and relative peace in the world. that is the only reason we had a surplus.
but look, at this point, I'm almost willing to see what Obama would do at this point. I tend to stand behind whomever is president and give them the benefit of the doubt. based on my experience though, I just do not see his current plan working. government spending is out of control and it needs to stop. and thats something neither candidate has promised.
hmmm so the tax % for businesses is the same for those that make 75k or 1 million?
it's not as simple as percentages... however it is arguable that the tax% is actually less for the larger farms than the smaller but that's going to include larger tax breaks for multiple line item deductions on federal, state and county levels.
The more you have, the cheaper it all becomes.... crop insurance, farm vehicle taxes, county road taxes, farm insurance...and taxes as well...
The more you have the less you pay % wise in taxes
:eek:
what i want to know is who in the hell took over outlaw's username?!
seriously, while i may not agree on all points per se....i agree overall, in theory. just shocked to see a nader supporter so clearly and definitively....and finally acknowledge the differences, and the importance of such.
my biggest issue with Obama was always foreign policy, but I have personal issues that deal more with domestic law right now.
my biggest issue with Obama was always foreign policy, but I have personal issues that deal more with domestic law right now.
only with your permission
as i have always stated in support of my personal choices for candidates...we EACH have to find our own personal focus and base our personal decisions on that. absolutely nothing wrong with basing YOUR choice on what is most important to YOU. we cannot change everything, all at once...as we may want or desire. so why not find the issues that are near and dear, and find your best alignment? always been my thinking.....but for me, it's about the greater good and/or the bigger picture as it were. there is no one candidate who meets all my critera, ever...so go with the one who most closely emulates what i desire most.
I wouldnt put clinton in the tax and spend category but he was lucky enough to be around doing the tech boom and relative peace in the world. that is the only reason we had a surplus.
but look, at this point, I'm almost willing to see what Obama would do at this point. I tend to stand behind whomever is president and give them the benefit of the doubt. based on my experience though, I just do not see his current plan working. government spending is out of control and it needs to stop. and thats something neither candidate has promised.
true. neither looks likely to reduce spending. i guess i just feel like if we're going to be doing the spending anyway, we ought to be paying for it. maybe if taxes get bad enough people will finally start asking where it goes. plus, mccain looks to be all too happy to simply continue on the same path that's been going on the last 8 years. anything is a better change than that, as far as i'm concerned.
Catch-22 is simply a no win situation -- and i think in my case (like the movie) there is circular logic as i want the pres to not be a rebulican, but the one who speaks about change has no experience, but the one with experience does not know where he is when he lands, so i go with the other option, but he will hurt my wallet, so i go with the rebublican, and we start all over again.
as for not voting for either of them, i am in jersey, so that is an option since my vote is practically meaningless.
I was always taught that a catch-22 was a situation, a problem which cannot be solved because the solution is denied by the regulations and rules that are inherent to this particular problem.
A student who just graduated might hear he needs experience to get work, but you can only get experience by getting a job.
Anyway, this isn't really a Logics thread, but a thread about a shitty political situation in the US.
You have other choices, Nader is one and not voting is another one.
wage gaps over the last 8 years have been increasing at alarming rates. this is dangerous. we are dependent on a service economy, and that means we need a wide base of consumers. that means we need broad wealth.
Nicely put, I wonder why this isn't a widely accepted stance. It does seem logical : better distributed money = more consumers
as i have always stated in support of my personal choices for candidates...we EACH have to find our own personal focus and base our personal decisions on that. absolutely nothing wrong with basing YOUR choice on what is most important to YOU. we cannot change everything, all at once...as we may want or desire. so why not find the issues that are near and dear, and find your best alignment? always been my thinking.....but for me, it's about the greater good and/or the bigger picture as it were. there is no one candidate who meets all my critera, ever...so go with the one who most closely emulates what i desire most.
It's the other part of that....widely distributed money = less incentive to improve = less investing in business (especially small business)
Anytime you just give people things, including money, you take a little bit of their independence and drive to improve away.
I don't think reducing the income gap can be done by giving money away either, equal redistribution among the whole population obviously won't work. But it's possible to enact policies to reduce inequalities in terms of income (raising the minimum wage for instance) without devaluating work.
Comments
Yes.
No, we don't make a million $ a year profit, but we have 2000+ acres and it takes a million $ per year to make it work...the past four years we have been operating at a loss... this year looks better
I'm sorry you can't relate.
If we make a profit of over $75000 we are taxed the same as corporate farms that bring in millions.
I'm saying they have more advantages because they make more money than I do. If I don't make $200,000 (living income) this year I may have to apply for assistance again this year or be forced to make other career changes.
If you are wealthy in this country you really have to screw the pooch not to stay wealthy. Every program is designed to help the wealthy stay wealthy in this country.
Two years ago after hurricane Katrina, we applied for soybean rust aid and got a $10000 relief check. That didn't even cover but 400 acres out of 5000 acres we had problems in. We were told the money wasn't there and we were fortunate to get what we did. Corporate farms X nationwide got over $63,000,000 (that's 63 million) for soybean rust assistance from the hurricane. That's how your tax dollars work... mostly helping the wealthy and not the poor.... my farms could dry up and no one cares it's a drop in the bucket.... but let the big farms go down and it's a national crisis (I understand this) but if they go to market with 200 million bushels they're going to operate at quite a substantially less profit margin than I can therefore they can essentially put me out of business over the course of a few years. Since they already hire cheap and sometimes illegal labor that they don't pay taxes for I don't think they should be given tax breaks that places them at a distinct advantage over me. Point is the Corporations should pay more taxes OR be accountable for being more fiscally responsible in the market in a fairness to all scenarion (which of course will never happen) and they need to be held accountable for pissing all over monopoly and other trade laws.
...just sayin
:eek:
what i want to know is who in the hell took over outlaw's username?!
seriously, while i may not agree on all points per se....i agree overall, in theory. just shocked to see a nader supporter so clearly and definitively....and finally
carry on...........
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
the proof is the 1980's. it amazes me that people still think reagan's trickle down economics bullshit is sound economics.
the fact is, american capitalism as we know it is dying. we cannot compete with foreign markets anymore. wage gaps over the last 8 years have been increasing at alarming rates. this is dangerous. we are dependent on a service economy, and that means we need a wide base of consumers. that means we need broad wealth. the middle and lower classes are being gutted as the money goes UP, not trickles down. we're headed for catastrophe if we cling to this belief that somehow not taxing INDIVIDUAL income (those rich people use their personal income for stock investment, not job expansion in their companies) will resurrect or maintain our economy. the current approach to taxes is just like a store burning through inventory before closing. we're just cutting our losses and anyone who thinks otherwise is blind.
I can relate, I just didnt understand what u meant at first, now I do. thank you for clarifying.
but a farm that makes a million a year does pay more in taxes then you. by % and by dollar amount. does it not?
the book is SO much better than the movie!
and when has tax and spend worked? I'm not saying trickle down ploicy is the answer. I'm not here promoting McCain's tax ideas. he has promised to not raise taxes and cut spending. do I think he will? probably not. I do know however that Obama will raise taxes for the rich and increase spending. an utter disaster IMO
"tax and spend" worked ok for clinton. shit, he managed a balanced budget when he had the help of republicans who actually knew how to address spending. the line item veto should never have been overruled. but he wasn't exactly axing important federal programs to do it.
i've not heard the specifics of obama's plans, but i'm wondering how much increased spending we're talking versus taxes. i also suspect some of the "increased" spending is simply going to be moving some funding from defense to education and the like. unless you're talking about universal health care, which i'm sure will never get off the ground.
in any case, i'm all for the prospect that maybe we'll take in as much as we spend regardless of the wisdom of high spending, a balanced budget is better than crippling debt. and i know for a fact spending will increase on mccain's watch as much as ever. i prefer a real attempt to balance a budget to more republican bullshit pipe dreams like "we'll reduce spending, i swear! just vote for this huge tax cut for the top 5% first!"
Yes they pay more $$$ but the % has been the same or less since 2002, plus naturally they don't tax federal assistance or such huge windfalls... this goes for most corporate government handouts
hmmm so the tax % for businesses is the same for those that make 75k or 1 million?
I wouldnt put clinton in the tax and spend category but he was lucky enough to be around doing the tech boom and relative peace in the world. that is the only reason we had a surplus.
but look, at this point, I'm almost willing to see what Obama would do at this point. I tend to stand behind whomever is president and give them the benefit of the doubt. based on my experience though, I just do not see his current plan working. government spending is out of control and it needs to stop. and thats something neither candidate has promised.
it's not as simple as percentages... however it is arguable that the tax% is actually less for the larger farms than the smaller but that's going to include larger tax breaks for multiple line item deductions on federal, state and county levels.
The more you have, the cheaper it all becomes.... crop insurance, farm vehicle taxes, county road taxes, farm insurance...and taxes as well...
The more you have the less you pay % wise in taxes
as i have always stated in support of my personal choices for candidates...we EACH have to find our own personal focus and base our personal decisions on that. absolutely nothing wrong with basing YOUR choice on what is most important to YOU. we cannot change everything, all at once...as we may want or desire. so why not find the issues that are near and dear, and find your best alignment? always been my thinking.....but for me, it's about the greater good and/or the bigger picture as it were. there is no one candidate who meets all my critera, ever...so go with the one who most closely emulates what i desire most.
but of course....;)
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
true. neither looks likely to reduce spending. i guess i just feel like if we're going to be doing the spending anyway, we ought to be paying for it. maybe if taxes get bad enough people will finally start asking where it goes. plus, mccain looks to be all too happy to simply continue on the same path that's been going on the last 8 years. anything is a better change than that, as far as i'm concerned.
I was always taught that a catch-22 was a situation, a problem which cannot be solved because the solution is denied by the regulations and rules that are inherent to this particular problem.
A student who just graduated might hear he needs experience to get work, but you can only get experience by getting a job.
Anyway, this isn't really a Logics thread, but a thread about a shitty political situation in the US.
You have other choices, Nader is one and not voting is another one.
naděje umírá poslední
It's the other part of that....widely distributed money = less incentive to improve = less investing in business (especially small business)
Anytime you just give people things, including money, you take a little bit of their independence and drive to improve away.
I'm sure there is a happy medium in their somewhere.