GET OUT OF MY POCKET! Before Washington can read the bills they are pushing, they need to read the Constitution.
Legal Disclaimer
Views expressed are opinions. Not responsible for other's views, opinions, comments, or statements of fact.
Now that the legal mumbo jumbo is outta the way...
Saturday, October 27, 2012
Econ 101
Is
it really so hard to understand that when you buy something, the price
of that item is determined by the companies expenses? If you charge
them more taxes, they just raise their prices. If they can't raise
their prices high enough to cover expenses including taxes, they go out
of business and more jobs are lost.
The end user, you and I, pay ALL taxes whether we see them or not.
Plus, if companies were not paying taxes they would be a lot less
interested in the politics. You want to cut superpacs and corporate
involvement in the political arena, that is the best way to start, cut
out their interest.
"OMG She wants to eliminate ALL corporate
taxes!" Yes, since they just pass them on, think how much cheaper
everything would be. How many more jobs would be created. Think how
much better we would compete on a global market!!!
19 comments:
Mother Economics Jones
said...
If your taking away the tax burdens from all those companies out there today, the CEOs and board members will only pocket it.
Just look at oil. A hint of problem and the prices skyrocket before the over-priced oil hits the refineries. After the probs blow over, they're dropping the prices gradually for weeks but never drop to the original lower price.
Taxes keep corporations in check. It keeps them honest and keeps the greedy in line with the middle class. You have a lot to learn.
Just assume for discussion your man Mittens Rumney gets the election. He will just legalize what the big corporations have doing all along, evading taxes.
Obama second term should be to raise the taxes and close the loop holes. It's time for all these rich fat cats to pay their fair share.
Only there seem to be a lot more in Obama's cabinet.
Corporations will only pocket profits if Americans are too stupid to shop for the best prices. If a company does not lower it's prices, you shop somewhere else, simple. Or do you think all Americans are stupid, as most progressives do think that way.
Auntie...my granpa tol' me something that has stuck with me ever since...
"Buy cheap stuff...you buy twice"...
it was true then an' it's true now...
many american buyers are just plainassed cheapskates...lowest price wins...and that isn't good for anybody...quality goods are hard to find today but if you can buy 12 cheepy crap items for the price of a quality item...it's a gimme mo' mentality...
if gubmint was out of the way and we had a flat tax or fair tax after the current tax system was thrown into the dumpster...we would all win and the political fingers in the pie would be put to better use...
Ah butt there is a difference between cheap and a good value! If we were lucky enough to have the fair tax, I would be looking closely at which stores/manufacturers had lowered their prices accordingly and they would get my business. They would all get the message if we the consumers exercised our wallet rights.
Understand capitalism? I'm thinking that I understand it very well. When capitalism is left to it's own devices, wages of the workers go down, abuse of workers goes up, the company owners increase their profits, and the gap between rich and poor widens.
Look at the coal industry in its early days in Pennsylvania. Before the unions, all the workers were trapped in the coal mining towns. Everything was purchased at the company store for scathingly high prices. The company owners saw large profits. When the unions moved in, everything changed and the workers conditions improved along with their salaries.
We do not need more government for corporations. We need more regulation to bring in the greedy owners and put them in jail.
The Romney way to bring business back from China, he'll have to reinstitute the old abusive measures of the days before government regulation. What we really need to do is increase tariffs to penalize China. Once they see they have to bring up their living standards, everything will start to even out, we'll reduce tariffs, and work will come back to the US.
We'll be rich in oil and nothing left to eat. Dozens of years of good EPA regulation are being tossed out the window. Our food sources are being destroyed.
No you don't understand capitalism because it has not practiced as free market in over 50 years, you are going by recent examples with government interference.
And really? Coal mines? Why do progressives always ASSume that safety concerns will go backwards? Do you really think those companies enjoy paying out lawsuits when things go wrong? No, those examples could not happen on a regular basis. There will always be accidents and government involvement does not mitigate those.
Put them in jail? For being greedy in your definition? Fine, let's put all greedy people in jail, starting with those who want to take from me to give to others. Maybe we'll start with you.
You keep deflecting but you still have not proven that jobs can be created any other way than by those greedy corporatists. SO how would you have us make a living? Working for the government? Who would pay our taxes to pay our wages?
Your arguments fail to take into consideration how your entire process would work. It wouldn't! It has failed every time it has been tried.
If you want a more socialistic environment, then go somewhere it is already in operation. We have a republic here and want to keep it so.
Right now, I work several ranches for rich people. I get paid pretty well. I only take the work I am willing to get paid well for. Why? Because I know what I am doing. I have a reputation for tracking, managing, and keeping up healthy livestock.
Seven of the ten richest counties in this nation are the ones surrounding Washington, D.C. (1). In fact, 19 of the 25 richest counties are on the east coast, tracking well with your liberal demographic (2). In fact, the Federal Govt is doling out the highest paid salaries (2) at taxpayers expense. California and Nashville performers pick up the rest (2). You want to go your route? Fine, then you show us how your system works. Start with your people in the Washington, D.C. area.
Barack Obama makes $400,000 a year, has a $150,000 tax free expense account, and a $100,000 tax free travel expense account. On top of that, Michelle earned another $316,000 to handle community affairs as of Apr 9 (3). In one report, Obama made another $5.5million from book sales (4). I think that we can assume the Obama's are easily in the top 1%, something you folks love to go spouting bad and evil things about.
So, yes, you put Barack and Michelle in jail first along with the rest of his tribe (Harry Reid, worth about $4.6million all from politics???? (5) with an annual salary of $193,000 a year).
So, what is the problem liberal Jones? Once again, we come with the facts from your own media to demonstrate your hypocrisy. Thing is, your man is giving ice cream away to people with no desire to work while you cover for him with that class warfare filth. Well, there is war coming. Unlike the former Soviet Union, we have no underlying economic system to save us when the economy collapses under the weight of unchecked government liberal spending. When that happens, you look like a small snack to me, but with some spices, you will still cook up pretty well. Little difference between you and raccoon.
Seriously, too much of the Rumney cooky aide or is that fire water? What Obama makes is still a pittance compared to Mittens.
I know a lot of people are talking about that fruit cake but when they get to the booth they will vote Obama. The rest of you trolls will wake up to reality come Wed next week.
OTR gave you links (some from liberal sources) and you think we are in need of medical assistance? You are delusional pal.
You think it's a bad thing that Romney makes more than Obama? How is that bad?
In your personal life, measure of success is how your friends and family feel about you and how you have helped them succeed in what they endeavour.
In your professional life, measure of success is your satisfaction with your job and a measure of how good you are at your job is how much you make.
I guess it just means Romney is better at what he does. So he will hopefully be better than Obama at getting Americans back to work. Certainly can't be worse since blacks are now at a 14.3% unemployment under Obama.
BTW, it's going to be close unfortunately. So no matter who wins, neither one can claim a "mandate from the people". This country is far too divided to come to a consensus and that is the sad part. That so many of us have become "looters" that we want security over liberty.
The time honored Republican tradition of building for a war and starting a war.
Mittens might be more like Obama. Now, I'm just using your terminology here. Mittens wants to grow the government by increasing defense. Let's get all those unemployed youth off the streets and put them in uniform guarding Rumney's loot or invading countries to steal more oil! Then spend more tax dollars stimulating the defense industry buying weapon systems that don't work.
Unlike Obama, Rumney will line the pockets of his greedy friends. Obama would be putting the money into the pockets of people needing help to live day to day.
You obviously haven't been paying attention to what is happening in the middle east. If anything, Obama is more likely to get us into more military actions over there. For instance, we are already involved in Libya, Yemen, Pakistan, soon to be Syria, all where we were not four years ago. Oh and Obama got Iran to wait till yesterday (3 days before election) to announce they would NOT be enriching to the 20% level.
sure they won't....
But yeah Romney will build the military, no doubt there. I don't think he will get us in as many different "actions" as Obama would though.
Of course there are those nasty Obama drones killing innocent civilians.
Hopefully Romney will at least repeal the NDAA (Obama). He's been back and forth on that one, but he has seen how Americans are not wild about it so he may change his stand. We'll see.
You haven't been paying attention if you think I have said Romney is perfect. Ron Paul would have been the best.
BUT Romney will be better for our economy NO DOUBT about that. And Obama would have taken us further down the road to government independence. We have to preserve something of our republic for when we do find a liberty candidate that Americans can agree on.
And you STILL have not addressed how your system would work without collapsing our economy all together.
Keep distracting!!! That's your game.
Now how about I copy and paste this over to YOUR site????
Auntie Em, You hit on it. 99 weeks of unemployment, but it does not stop there. Then there is shifting unemployment to Social Security disability, dropping the work requirement for welfare, increasing eligibility for food stamps. All of it is out of control.
There is a great divide in the country now. No matter how much we argue that people need to have their asses kicked off those damn couches to work, these people like Mother Jones will point out how cruel and heartless we are. Then the liberals will parade out some poor soul in a hospital bed with tubes coming out every orifice and tell the world that our real goal is to kill that poor person in the bed.
The argument is going nowhere. The more we discuss with the liberal the more everything we have is taken away and the liberals know that. Time is on their side.
What it finally comes down to is a fight. There is nothing left but for us to just say we refuse to go any further and for the liberals to take anymore will require bloodshed. Instead of a king in England, today 47% of our country is playing the part of the king or the plantation owner whipping us into submission to give them more, more, more. Time to give them hot lead.
"If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." Samuel Adams, 1776
Isn't it more important to be concerned with America succeeding? The success of one individual who is an employee of the American People is not near as important as the welfare of our nation and it's people. The American people deserve and have the right via the Constitution to the "pursuit of happiness". That is the right to succeed or fail on their own efforts, without any interference from the Federal Government.
The President, regardless of who is in the office at the time, is at best, a temporary employee and needs to remember who his boss is. US.
Fair Tax
The Rules
Post all you wish but foul comments will be deleted. If you can't get your point across without being disgusting then you are too ignorant to take up my space.
Which brings me to the second rule: don't be stupid.
Posts
19 comments:
If your taking away the tax burdens from all those companies out there today, the CEOs and board members will only pocket it.
Just look at oil. A hint of problem and the prices skyrocket before the over-priced oil hits the refineries. After the probs blow over, they're dropping the prices gradually for weeks but never drop to the original lower price.
Taxes keep corporations in check. It keeps them honest and keeps the greedy in line with the middle class. You have a lot to learn.
Seems that these fat cat CEOs really never pay their taxes anyway.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/10/romney-47-percent-fundraiser-james-batmasian-tax-evasion
Just assume for discussion your man Mittens Rumney gets the election. He will just legalize what the big corporations have doing all along, evading taxes.
Obama second term should be to raise the taxes and close the loop holes. It's time for all these rich fat cats to pay their fair share.
Yeah seems they have tax cheats on BOTH sides:
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/kevinglass/2012/07/22/the_obama_tax_cheats
Only there seem to be a lot more in Obama's cabinet.
Corporations will only pocket profits if Americans are too stupid to shop for the best prices. If a company does not lower it's prices, you shop somewhere else, simple. Or do you think all Americans are stupid, as most progressives do think that way.
LOL I have a lot to learn? Coming from someone who doesn't even understand capitalism, that is funny.
Who defines greedy? Seems to change depending on who you ask. I think those that expect me to support them are greedy.
Funny how you finally use a real id after I started posting on your site.
You really have them snowed over there.
Auntie...my granpa tol' me something that has stuck with me ever since...
"Buy cheap stuff...you buy twice"...
it was true then an' it's true now...
many american buyers are just plainassed cheapskates...lowest price wins...and that isn't good for anybody...quality goods are hard to find today but if you can buy 12 cheepy crap items for the price of a quality item...it's a gimme mo' mentality...
if gubmint was out of the way and we had a flat tax or fair tax after the current tax system was thrown into the dumpster...we would all win and the political fingers in the pie would be put to better use...
Ah butt there is a difference between cheap and a good value! If we were lucky enough to have the fair tax, I would be looking closely at which stores/manufacturers had lowered their prices accordingly and they would get my business. They would all get the message if we the consumers exercised our wallet rights.
my granma tol' me something that has stuck with me since...
don't argue with a lady...ever.
buttttt...cheap is cheep always has been always will be...
ooooouch!!!...granma!!!...that dirt clod hurt...get back in yer hole...it ain't votin' day yet...
Understand capitalism? I'm thinking that I understand it very well. When capitalism is left to it's own devices, wages of the workers go down, abuse of workers goes up, the company owners increase their profits, and the gap between rich and poor widens.
Look at the coal industry in its early days in Pennsylvania. Before the unions, all the workers were trapped in the coal mining towns. Everything was purchased at the company store for scathingly high prices. The company owners saw large profits. When the unions moved in, everything changed and the workers conditions improved along with their salaries.
We do not need more government for corporations. We need more regulation to bring in the greedy owners and put them in jail.
The Romney way to bring business back from China, he'll have to reinstitute the old abusive measures of the days before government regulation. What we really need to do is increase tariffs to penalize China. Once they see they have to bring up their living standards, everything will start to even out, we'll reduce tariffs, and work will come back to the US.
Something else your boy Mittens will do for us in the name of Capitalism:
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2012/10/harold-hamm-continental-resources-bakken-mitt-romney
We'll be rich in oil and nothing left to eat. Dozens of years of good EPA regulation are being tossed out the window. Our food sources are being destroyed.
Once again, more capitalism to kill us.
No you don't understand capitalism because it has not practiced as free market in over 50 years, you are going by recent examples with government interference.
And really? Coal mines? Why do progressives always ASSume that safety concerns will go backwards? Do you really think those companies enjoy paying out lawsuits when things go wrong? No, those examples could not happen on a regular basis. There will always be accidents and government involvement does not mitigate those.
Put them in jail? For being greedy in your definition? Fine, let's put all greedy people in jail, starting with those who want to take from me to give to others. Maybe we'll start with you.
You keep deflecting but you still have not proven that jobs can be created any other way than by those greedy corporatists. SO how would you have us make a living? Working for the government? Who would pay our taxes to pay our wages?
Your arguments fail to take into consideration how your entire process would work. It wouldn't! It has failed every time it has been tried.
If you want a more socialistic environment, then go somewhere it is already in operation. We have a republic here and want to keep it so.
...now you do realize we can find just as many positive reports about fracking as there are negative right?
Mother Focking Jones,
How many people can a poor man employ?
How many people can a rich man employ?
Right now, I work several ranches for rich people. I get paid pretty well. I only take the work I am willing to get paid well for. Why? Because I know what I am doing. I have a reputation for tracking, managing, and keeping up healthy livestock.
Seven of the ten richest counties in this nation are the ones surrounding Washington, D.C. (1). In fact, 19 of the 25 richest counties are on the east coast, tracking well with your liberal demographic (2). In fact, the Federal Govt is doling out the highest paid salaries (2) at taxpayers expense. California and Nashville performers pick up the rest (2). You want to go your route? Fine, then you show us how your system works. Start with your people in the Washington, D.C. area.
Barack Obama makes $400,000 a year, has a $150,000 tax free expense account, and a $100,000 tax free travel expense account. On top of that, Michelle earned another $316,000 to handle community affairs as of Apr 9 (3). In one report, Obama made another $5.5million from book sales (4). I think that we can assume the Obama's are easily in the top 1%, something you folks love to go spouting bad and evil things about.
So, yes, you put Barack and Michelle in jail first along with the rest of his tribe (Harry Reid, worth about $4.6million all from politics???? (5) with an annual salary of $193,000 a year).
So, what is the problem liberal Jones? Once again, we come with the facts from your own media to demonstrate your hypocrisy. Thing is, your man is giving ice cream away to people with no desire to work while you cover for him with that class warfare filth. Well, there is war coming. Unlike the former Soviet Union, we have no underlying economic system to save us when the economy collapses under the weight of unchecked government liberal spending. When that happens, you look like a small snack to me, but with some spices, you will still cook up pretty well. Little difference between you and raccoon.
(1) http://voices.washingtonpost.com/local-breaking-news/dc/7-of-10-richest-counties-in-dc.html
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/09/21/dc_metro_area_is_super_rich_7_of_the_10_ten_counties_are_in_the_dc_suburbs_.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highest-income_counties_in_the_United_States
(2) http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/04/america-richest-counties-lifestyle-real-estate-wealthy-suburbs.html
(3) http://www.salary-money.com/barack-obama-salary-400000.php
(4) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/16/tax-day-showed-obamas-boo_n_540121.html
(5) http://nevadanewsandviews.com/archives/2975
You're in need of medical assistance. Drumming up more of your conspiracy theories. Good article on the lot.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/10/chart-obama-conspiracy-theories
Seriously, too much of the Rumney cooky aide or is that fire water? What Obama makes is still a pittance compared to Mittens.
I know a lot of people are talking about that fruit cake but when they get to the booth they will vote Obama. The rest of you trolls will wake up to reality come Wed next week.
OTR gave you links (some from liberal sources) and you think we are in need of medical assistance? You are delusional pal.
You think it's a bad thing that Romney makes more than Obama? How is that bad?
In your personal life, measure of success is how your friends and family feel about you and how you have helped them succeed in what they endeavour.
In your professional life, measure of success is your satisfaction with your job and a measure of how good you are at your job is how much you make.
I guess it just means Romney is better at what he does. So he will hopefully be better than Obama at getting Americans back to work. Certainly can't be worse since blacks are now at a 14.3% unemployment under Obama.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/big-jump-unemployment-blacks_660067.html
BTW, it's going to be close unfortunately. So no matter who wins, neither one can claim a "mandate from the people". This country is far too divided to come to a consensus and that is the sad part. That so many of us have become "looters" that we want security over liberty.
Maybe with Rumney you will get your economic boost. What would Rumney do to improve our economy?
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/11/romney-national-security
The time honored Republican tradition of building for a war and starting a war.
Mittens might be more like Obama. Now, I'm just using your terminology here. Mittens wants to grow the government by increasing defense. Let's get all those unemployed youth off the streets and put them in uniform guarding Rumney's loot or invading countries to steal more oil! Then spend more tax dollars stimulating the defense industry buying weapon systems that don't work.
Unlike Obama, Rumney will line the pockets of his greedy friends. Obama would be putting the money into the pockets of people needing help to live day to day.
You obviously haven't been paying attention to what is happening in the middle east. If anything, Obama is more likely to get us into more military actions over there. For instance, we are already involved in Libya, Yemen, Pakistan, soon to be Syria, all where we were not four years ago. Oh and Obama got Iran to wait till yesterday (3 days before election) to announce they would NOT be enriching to the 20% level.
sure they won't....
But yeah Romney will build the military, no doubt there. I don't think he will get us in as many different "actions" as Obama would though.
Of course there are those nasty Obama drones killing innocent civilians.
Hopefully Romney will at least repeal the NDAA (Obama). He's been back and forth on that one, but he has seen how Americans are not wild about it so he may change his stand. We'll see.
You haven't been paying attention if you think I have said Romney is perfect. Ron Paul would have been the best.
BUT Romney will be better for our economy NO DOUBT about that. And Obama would have taken us further down the road to government independence. We have to preserve something of our republic for when we do find a liberty candidate that Americans can agree on.
And you STILL have not addressed how your system would work without collapsing our economy all together.
Keep distracting!!! That's your game.
Now how about I copy and paste this over to YOUR site????
Auntie Em, You hit on it. 99 weeks of unemployment, but it does not stop there. Then there is shifting unemployment to Social Security disability, dropping the work requirement for welfare, increasing eligibility for food stamps. All of it is out of control.
There is a great divide in the country now. No matter how much we argue that people need to have their asses kicked off those damn couches to work, these people like Mother Jones will point out how cruel and heartless we are. Then the liberals will parade out some poor soul in a hospital bed with tubes coming out every orifice and tell the world that our real goal is to kill that poor person in the bed.
The argument is going nowhere. The more we discuss with the liberal the more everything we have is taken away and the liberals know that. Time is on their side.
What it finally comes down to is a fight. There is nothing left but for us to just say we refuse to go any further and for the liberals to take anymore will require bloodshed. Instead of a king in England, today 47% of our country is playing the part of the king or the plantation owner whipping us into submission to give them more, more, more. Time to give them hot lead.
Post a Comment