Page 101 of 521 FirstFirst ... 519199100101102103111151201 ... LastLast
Results 2,001 to 2,020 of 10404

Thread: General Political Thread: News, Slander & Debate

  1. #2001
    HNIC BSBH Legend
    Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    77,103
    Rep Power
    532
    Quote Originally Posted by NoControl View Post
    What would you guys think about a taxation scheme which takes into account how many U.S. citizens you employ and how much you pay them in salary?

    A lot of the "Don't tax the rich" mantras deal with not wanting to take money from the job creators, something I agree is a problem. Yet we all know that there is a large percentage of the rich who are not creating jobs, they are investment bankers squirling away millions without giving a dime back towards improving the economy outside of their lavish houses, yachts, etc.

    Something like a sliding scale that starts off pretty high where millionares and billionares who create a lot of good paying jobs are sheilded while we scoop up a very high tax rate from those who don't create anything but merely skim off the top. We'll need to take salary into account, as creating 1,000 minimum wage jobs is not as beneficial to the country as creating 1,000 well paying jobs nor is it as beneficial to have only 100 very high paying jobs at the same cost as 1,000, but I'm sure we could find the sweet spots and come up with some adjustments.

    This would financially incentivize job creation in the U.S. as companies that employ people overseas would have to pay much higher taxes than those who employ U.S. workers. You could start the cutoff around $300,000/year in income and have part of the percentage scale be based on earnings:

    IE, someone making $1,000,000/year but employing 20 people at $80,000/year might pay 20% in taxes while someone making $100,000,000/year and employing 100 people at $80,000 would still face a 40% tax rate because relative to their salary they are not creating as significant a ratio of jobs. These are just extremes to show the flexibility of the system.
    Did you flip this, or am I just misunderstanding?

    I think there needs to be a new social contract where you aren't rewarded for things you should be expected to do. If you live in this country, you should be doing what's best for the country at large, without it being incentive based. These are usually the same people who complain about the immigrants who don't put money back into the economy and they send it to their home countries.

  2. #2002
    Russian Meddling BSBH Rookie
    josh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    27,432
    Rep Power
    325
    Quote Originally Posted by NoControl View Post
    What would you guys think about a taxation scheme which takes into account how many U.S. citizens you employ and how much you pay them in salary?

    A lot of the "Don't tax the rich" mantras deal with not wanting to take money from the job creators, something I agree is a problem. Yet we all know that there is a large percentage of the rich who are not creating jobs, they are investment bankers squirling away millions without giving a dime back towards improving the economy outside of their lavish houses, yachts, etc.

    Something like a sliding scale that starts off pretty high where millionares and billionares who create a lot of good paying jobs are sheilded while we scoop up a very high tax rate from those who don't create anything but merely skim off the top. We'll need to take salary into account, as creating 1,000 minimum wage jobs is not as beneficial to the country as creating 1,000 well paying jobs nor is it as beneficial to have only 100 very high paying jobs at the same cost as 1,000, but I'm sure we could find the sweet spots and come up with some adjustments.

    This would financially incentivize job creation in the U.S. as companies that employ people overseas would have to pay much higher taxes than those who employ U.S. workers. You could start the cutoff around $300,000/year in income and have part of the percentage scale be based on earnings:

    IE, someone making $1,000,000/year but employing 20 people at $80,000/year might pay 20% in taxes while someone making $100,000,000/year and employing 100 people at $80,000 would still face a 40% tax rate because relative to their salary they are not creating as significant a ratio of jobs. These are just extremes to show the flexibility of the system.
    No. I'd hire a ton of rich Americans to get taxed less, then hire a ton of resident aliens to do all the shit work at a low rate... also known as "The [Modern] American Way"

    The tax loophole is (or was) right around that level, 278-294k range, something weird. It's from the 401k loophole that also allows smart, rich individuals to split money so it is tax free... I'm not looking for my notes on this now.

    We need to incent jobs. In the US, we only give incentives for hiring non-Americans, or un-employed Americans. But, I do agree that the focus needs to be on number of jobs in the US, and include a ratio to workers making X dollars a year, or some type of median. It's tricky because if you are big enough, you can fluff numbers pretty easily. A company could easily give increases to top execs to boost "average" wages of employees. Thats why I feel the focus should be on number of jobs. People are always unhappy about how much they make and you can't focus on wages. Focus on number, not wages. Unions royally fucked up our wage system in the 50s.
    Last edited by josh; 12-05-2011 at 04:37 PM.
    Lias Andersson for #AJT2019

  3. #2003
    I feel sorry for the earth's population BSBH Prospect
    AmericanJesus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    19,579
    Rep Power
    351
    Quote Originally Posted by Peetie27 View Post
    Did you flip this, or am I just misunderstanding?

    I think there needs to be a new social contract where you aren't rewarded for things you should be expected to do. If you live in this country, you should be doing what's best for the country at large, without it being incentive based. These are usually the same people who complain about the immigrants who don't put money back into the economy and they send it to their home countries.
    No, not flipped. I was saying the first guy who's profiting $1M/year and putting out $1.8M in salary say from owning a successful small business should have his personal income of $1M taxed at a 20% rate. Compared to the salary he's drawing, his company is paying out twice that in salary to others. The second guy making $100M/year is only paying out around $8M in salary, less than 1/10th of what he's personally making, so he would be taxed at a higher rate.

    As far as your second point, it would be great if people just did what was right without having to be forced to or given a good reason to, but it's no way to run a country because people won't. And we know that one size doesn't fit all which is why we have tax brackets and percentage based taxes to begin with. Since we already have all sorts of weighted means to tax, why not raise the taxes significantly on those who don't give anything back, lower them significantly on those who either give a lot back or give a lot back as compared to how much they take for themselves, and see if incentives don't help create jobs.
    Frisbeetarianism is the belief that when you die, your soul goes up on the roof and gets stuck. George Carlin

  4. #2004
    HNIC BSBH Legend
    Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    77,103
    Rep Power
    532
    Quote Originally Posted by NoControl View Post
    No, not flipped. I was saying the first guy who's profiting $1M/year and putting out $1.8M in salary say from owning a successful small business should have his personal income of $1M taxed at a 20% rate. Compared to the salary he's drawing, his company is paying out twice that in salary to others. The second guy making $100M/year is only paying out around $8M in salary, less than 1/10th of what he's personally making, so he would be taxed at a higher rate.

    As far as your second point, it would be great if people just did what was right without having to be forced to or given a good reason to, but it's no way to run a country because people won't. And we know that one size doesn't fit all which is why we have tax brackets and percentage based taxes to begin with. Since we already have all sorts of weighted means to tax, why not raise the taxes significantly on those who don't give anything back, lower them significantly on those who either give a lot back or give a lot back as compared to how much they take for themselves, and see if incentives don't help create jobs.
    OK, gotcha. Makes sense.

  5. #2005
    I feel sorry for the earth's population BSBH Prospect
    AmericanJesus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    19,579
    Rep Power
    351
    Quote Originally Posted by NosLliWhsoj View Post
    No. I'd hire a ton of rich Americans to get taxed less, then hire a ton of resident aliens to do all the shit work at a low rate... also known as "The [Modern] American Way"
    That's why I said a sliding scale based on not just the amount of people but also the salaries paid out. I'm thinking that there is a minimum threshold, so lets say for arguement that's $40K. If you pay someone $200,000 that counts as 1 employee. If you pay someone $20,000 you would need two to count as 1 employee. Paying 10 people $20K and 1 person $1M would still only get you 6 employees.

    Also, if you hire those rich Americans, their salary would still be taxed highly because they are making over $300K and not employing anyone.
    Frisbeetarianism is the belief that when you die, your soul goes up on the roof and gets stuck. George Carlin

  6. #2006
    Russian Meddling BSBH Rookie
    josh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    27,432
    Rep Power
    325
    Quote Originally Posted by NoControl View Post
    That's why I said a sliding scale based on not just the amount of people but also the salaries paid out. I'm thinking that there is a minimum threshold, so lets say for arguement that's $40K. If you pay someone $200,000 that counts as 1 employee. If you pay someone $20,000 you would need two to count as 1 employee. Paying 10 people $20K and 1 person $1M would still only get you 6 employees.

    Also, if you hire those rich Americans, their salary would still be taxed highly because they are making over $300K and not employing anyone.
    You can'tput a salary on it like that. Then wage's freeze once they get too far beyond that level.

    Does it really matter how much someone makes? Or that they are making something?
    Lias Andersson for #AJT2019

  7. #2007
    I feel sorry for the earth's population BSBH Prospect
    AmericanJesus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    19,579
    Rep Power
    351
    Quote Originally Posted by NosLliWhsoj View Post
    You can'tput a salary on it like that. Then wage's freeze once they get too far beyond that level.

    Does it really matter how much someone makes? Or that they are making something?
    You also don't want to incentivize highering a bunch of minimum wage employees to get a better tax break than a couple better paid people, or the firing of people once their salary gets too high above a certain amount. $40K was just an example, we could use $80,000.

    And you can have different scales even. It can be a complex theory to keep things in check and to make it hard to cheat it. The overarching point would be to reward those who create jobs by charging them less in taxes, or conversly to put a higher tax rate on those who earn a lot of money but don't employ anyone else.
    Frisbeetarianism is the belief that when you die, your soul goes up on the roof and gets stuck. George Carlin

  8. #2008
    Russian Meddling BSBH Rookie
    josh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    27,432
    Rep Power
    325
    Quote Originally Posted by NoControl View Post
    You also don't want to incentivize highering a bunch of minimum wage employees to get a better tax break than a couple better paid people, or the firing of people once their salary gets too high above a certain amount. $40K was just an example, we could use $80,000.
    But that's going against the purpose of minimum wage; you are establishing a soft-minimum wage, really. "If employees dont make 40k, company does not get [incentive]"

    Additionally, you are democrating any small business or entrepreneur just starting out. They start out just dividing the small revenues with people making very little money the first few years.

    You can't have a dollar amount. I'll hire a min wage worker and a guy making 39,5. I'd almost have to with that proposal.

    You can't push people up tax brackets, eventually they all fall out, ala Chevy when they did it with their employees.
    Lias Andersson for #AJT2019

  9. #2009
    Formerly Dru23 BSBH Prospect
    NYR2711's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    West Babylon
    Posts
    13,665
    Rep Power
    86
    Quote Originally Posted by siddious View Post
    I think the republican party is just incredible out of touch with what America needs. I cant believe any of the "top" candidates are even considered candidates.

    And then you have idiots like Trump who just make a mockery out of the whole process.

    Gingrich might actually be the worst candidate out of all of them. The guy just reeks of sleaziness and this is in a race that also had Herman Caine running.
    But how exactly are the Democrats that much more in touch with what America needs. Both sides arent doing anything to protect the American people or in the best interest of the American people. Both sides have shitty candidates. And a lot of Obama's supporters are getting fed up with him because of his lack of getting anything done. The country is in a fiscal crisis, and what is fearless leader doing? He is going on vacation yet again, this time for 17 days. Is that really in touch with the needs of Americans? Maybe he should have cut this one short to deal with some of shit going on with the country and its finances, or find a way to get Americans back to work or keep them in their homes.

  10. #2010
    Sighing Dutchman BSBH Prospect
    Jules's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Princeton, NJ
    Posts
    18,809
    Rep Power
    127
    If you guys thought you had a controversial group of presidential candidates you probably haven't heard this. In Belgium, which is a pre-dominantly Dutch speaking country that is divided over financial issues that are mostly caused by the French-speaking part of the country, the new prime minister is a flamboyantly gay socialist who hardly speaks Dutch. It took them over 500 days to find a coalition and some agreement and now they come up with this. The Flemish (Dutch speaking part is Flanders) are furious and see nothing in this guy and his government.



    I mean, does this look like a serious politician to you?
    Nothing is true, everything is permitted.
    Hidden Content

  11. #2011
    Formerly Dru23 BSBH Prospect
    NYR2711's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    West Babylon
    Posts
    13,665
    Rep Power
    86
    While a lot of European governments do seem to have a lot of controversies/problems, the one good thing I do love about European politics is that they have multiple parties and multiple candidates, like you have even mentioned in past posts. I wish we had that here. We do, but outside of the Repubs and Demos, most are from these wacky parties that stand zero chance in winning.

  12. #2012
    Sighing Dutchman BSBH Prospect
    Jules's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Princeton, NJ
    Posts
    18,809
    Rep Power
    127
    Quote Originally Posted by NYR2711 View Post
    While a lot of European governments do seem to have a lot of controversies/problems, the one good thing I do love about European politics is that they have multiple parties and multiple candidates, like you have even mentioned in past posts. I wish we had that here. We do, but outside of the Repubs and Demos, most are from these wacky parties that stand zero chance in winning.
    Yes, that's true. We have a lot of options and some of it is in the nuances, but if you are a social liberal but financial conservative there's a party of you and if you are actually a social conservative but in favor of a more social-democratic financial approach that's available too. I think the Dutch and Belgian system have too many parties, as we in The Netherlands have 9 or 10 parties on average in our parliament. I prefer a system like Germany, where there are 4 or 5 serious options who all have their distinct influence on the country.
    Nothing is true, everything is permitted.
    Hidden Content

  13. #2013
    Formerly Dru23 BSBH Prospect
    NYR2711's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    West Babylon
    Posts
    13,665
    Rep Power
    86
    Quote Originally Posted by Jules View Post
    Yes, that's true. We have a lot of options and some of it is in the nuances, but if you are a social liberal but financial conservative there's a party of you and if you are actually a social conservative but in favor of a more social-democratic financial approach that's available too. I think the Dutch and Belgian system have too many parties, as we in The Netherlands have 9 or 10 parties on average in our parliament. I prefer a system like Germany, where there are 4 or 5 serious options who all have their distinct influence on the country.
    I can see 9 or 10 parties being too much. 4 or 5 seems like it would be good, and it covers a good majority of the people. The thing I hate about a 2 party system is that it doesnt cover everyone. It only looks out for two kinds of people, when there are more than 2 kinds everywhere. I really hate American politics because its all for show, none of the candidates nowadays are any good, on both sides.

  14. #2014
    \_(ツ)_/ BSBH Prospect
    Patrick Bateman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    10,105
    Rep Power
    218
    All this Herman Cain stuff is just a conspiracy to make sure a black man never becomes president
    Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

    Regards,

    Patrick Bateman

    Sent from my iPhone

  15. #2015
    ContraQuinndicated BSBH Prospect
    G1000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    16,610
    Rep Power
    152
    Quote Originally Posted by Renegade View Post
    All this Herman Cain stuff is just a conspiracy to make sure a black man never becomes president
    Clearly the conspiracy failed
    Hidden Content
    Blueshirts Brotherhood. We do what we must because we can - for the good of all Rangerkind

  16. #2016
    Banned Midget Division Greggy Gloom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    3,560
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Renegade View Post
    All this Herman Cain stuff is just a conspiracy to make sure a black man never becomes president

  17. #2017
    Senior Member Bantam Division Niagaraiceman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Rome, New York, United States
    Posts
    1,278
    Rep Power
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhommy View Post
    Clearly the conspiracy failed
    Nope, alive and well. Barrack Obama isn't black! He is a Mooslem!! There is a big difference. Oh and he wasn't born here.

    Where is that sarcasm font when we need it

  18. #2018
    \_(ツ)_/ BSBH Prospect
    Patrick Bateman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    10,105
    Rep Power
    218
    Quote Originally Posted by Niagaraiceman View Post
    Nope, alive and well. Barrack Obama isn't black! He is a Mooslem!! There is a big difference. Oh and he wasn't born here.

    Where is that sarcasm font when we need it
    Why would you need such a font for that post?
    Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

    Regards,

    Patrick Bateman

    Sent from my iPhone

  19. #2019
    Senior Member Bantam Division Niagaraiceman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Rome, New York, United States
    Posts
    1,278
    Rep Power
    17
    Cause it would make me look more cooler

  20. #2020
    Mia San Mia BSBH Prospect
    Bluephoria's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Tel Aviv, Israel
    Posts
    11,715
    Rep Power
    51
    Anyone catch the presidents speech yesterday(6th)? He's really, as they say, drawing a line in the sand now. Blasting the Bush tax cuts, trickle-down economics, deregulation, etc.. and also aligning himself with the ideas of the occupy movement.... most notably the influence the endless lobby dollars have on influencing decisions in favor of the extremely wealthy.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •