108 total posts
(Page 1 of 4)
Sounds like someone is trying to achieve equality
by tilting the playing field rather than leveling it?
When students get a loan....
Do they get it from business or government?
It used to be from
banks or financial institutions....until BO changed it all to being from the government only.
Ultimately, the money comes from the working public.
RE: from the working public.
through taxes? Government?
You think businesses, that believe in tax inversions, should benefit by having students that received government money, work for them(businesses) for lower wages to get student loan debt reduced?
that you just made a statement and punctuated it with a question mark.
What you've just said/asked
makes no sense at all.....most 'students' get their degrees in order to work for HIGHER wages not lower ones.
Businesses don't 'believe in inversions'....it's an option that government put into place that they would be financially stupid not to take advantage of.
How would lower wages for students (once they graduate or get their degree they are no longer students, BTW) reduce their debt?
So, if student loans were reduced or eliminated,
wouldn't it be stupid if the student didn't take advantage of it?
Students can't do what's best for them financially
only corporations can do that.
When you can put a coherent sentence together, come on back.
I didn't say the inversion law
and other tax laws shouldn't be changed, Diana.....
What I'm saying is why should the taxpayer have to pay for student loans for kids they don't have? Should ONLY the government workers get their loans forgiven as this new bill would allow? Don't government workers already get more benefits than any private sector worker gets?
You talk about 'fair and equal' treatment.....that doesn't even come close with this administration, and it's always the taxpayer, yourself included, that pays the price for this administration to pick and choose the winners and losers, Diana.....and the loser is ALWAYS the taxpayer (that's ALL the taxpayers, not just those rich guys).
This is just one more step towards liberal government now paying for students to go to college for free and controlling not only their education but also their votes. Illegals are already getting priority when it comes to a free education.........and this administration has done away with the parental option of choice by closing down Charter schools even though the proof that the education for kids in those schools is much better than public schools....but the teachers aren't unionized so they have to go, right, even if the kids are the ones who suffer the consequences?
We have to make up the taxes that corporations don't pay
I would rather help students and the poor and middle class than wealthy people and corporations.
Don't you get tired
of saying the same thing over and over, Diana? You don't make up any taxes that corporations don't pay.....what actually helps the revenue is having more people with jobs who contribute rather than take everything a corporation has.
You moan if they take legal tax credits, you moan if they cut employees or their hours in order to pay Obamacare, you moan if they aren't paying a wage you agree with, you moan that their tax rate isn't high enough even though the USA has the highest corporate tax rate in the entire world.....as I've said before, you can take 100% of their money and it still wouldn't be enough to make liberals happy. You moan about subsidies for oil companies, but refuse to acknowledge that 35% of their profits goes to taxes alone....and it's not enough still.
"Helping" the students doesn't mean eating their loans, Diana....especially when the ONLY students getting that free ride will be ones who have been hired by government. The rest of the students are still liable for their debt. Is that FAIR in your eyes? Aren't liberals all for 'fair and equal'?
As for the 'poor'.....they live quite comfortably on this government and the tax payers who are supporting them.
If our corporations pay the highest taxes in the world,
how come one in four don't pay any taxes. There are so many loopholes that the tax rate is a farce. Also the richest family in the US is the Walton family. Wal-Mart pays their employees so little that they qualify for food stamps and welfare and Medicaid. Why should I subsidize Wal-Mart's profits? I'm sure they don't pay 35% in taxes. Do you know of any that actually do?
Take your 'ferinstance'
>>>Wal-Mart pays their employees so little that they qualify for food stamps and welfare and Medicaid.>>>
Wal-Mart actually pays ABOVE the minimum wage, as does McDonalds.
If you REALLY have concerns about people not being paid enough, let's try looking at how many of our MILITARY have families that qualify for food-stamps. I've never ONCE heard you say that our people who are willing to DIE for you should be paid more....in fact, I've heard just the OPPOSITE from you with regarding to cutting the Pentagon budget.
I think that is despicable
The military is still paying like the lower pay grades are single men rather than men with families. I thought it was also despicable when the House took away so many of the food stamps that the families depend on.
I figure that people that put their lives on the line should make more than a living wage.
BTW cutting the Pentagon would just cut some of the waste. How much money has the Pentagon just lost. They have no idea where it went. Also get rid of the things that the military doesn't even want but they are made in some important Congress critter's district.
Found some statistics on the Walton family
We are studying Ephesians in church
Today we studied the first part of chapter 5 that I found interesting. This is from the NIV.
For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person—such a person is an idolater—has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.[
Wonder if any of those good conservative Christians have read this verse? Or the one Jesus said that it is easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven.
If people to contribute to the country that they work in every day and would rather move their profits overseas so they don't have to pay any taxes, would you call that greed. Just because it's legal doesn't make it right.
If liberals in Congress
REALLY want to make it 'right', then why are they so resistant to submitting a bill and passing it for real tax reform, Diana? Because it's easier to GET the votes from the population that doesn't like the 'haves' than it is to piss off the actual DONORS that get them elected........so they TALK a great bunch of crap about how they're going to go after their money, then DO nothing when they finally can.
Six years already.........and total control of the Senate with plenty of Republicans and Democrats in the House wanting tax reform that would actually vote for something decent, and Reid hasn't presented even ONE bill about this.
What is real tax reform?
I haven't seen any coming out of the House. They want to give more unfunded tax breaks to the rich but giving help to the poor is impossible because they are unfunded.
that Republicans keep suggesting is a three-tier flat tax....with only limited tax deductions, such as home mortgages and child care. Democrats won't even discuss it which is why there haven't been any bills yet...Republicans keep negotiating with Dems in the House to get suggestions from them before writing and voting on a bill. But you can bet, that even if one does get passed in the House with bi-partisan support, Reid won't allow it to come to a vote in the Senate or present it for amendments because it isn't even close to what the radical left wants, which is MORE taxes. And even though they TALK about only wanting to tax the rich, every time they GET a tax increase, it isn't the rich that gets stuck....it's the middle class. The very groups they claim to want to help.
Do you have a link to the flat tax? Haven't heard of it.
The flat tax structure JP
that your old article is from doesn't depict the percentage that each of the three-tiers would actually pay....with the lowest in the poor class paying nothing because the way the Conservatives are talking about doing it would have a base pay/income scale as a starting point. Your article with its pie chart assumes a flat tax rate being the same for everyone, and that's not what is being proposed. And for the top income levels, the thousands of pages of deductions with various tax rates for each of those deductions, such as capital gains, virtually disappears as they would now, including corporations have to pay a flat tax on all incomes.
RE:The flat tax structure JP
Your article with its pie chart assumes a flat tax rate being the same for everyone, and that's not what is being proposed.
It isn't? That's NOT what your links were proposing?
From YOUR link
The selling point is a low, single rate of tax.
low?....single? What do those 2 words mean to you? To me they mean everyone pays the same rate.
PLEASE...Just respond to the questions I've posed...do not go off on anther tangent.
JP...the statement you
quoted in my washingtonpost link was HIS suggestion.....not something Conservatives have been discussing. Actually, if you look at both of the links, especially the first one, you will see that the lower pay scale people would pay nothing at all because there would be a low-'ceiling' as to where the tax rate base would begin.
"PLEASE...Just respond to the questions I've posed...do not go off on anther tangent." PLEASE explain WHAT tangent I have been going off to for you to make this kind of remark? This is the kind of rant/insult of yours that causes disruption when it isn't even necessary. Doesn't it even seem a little hypocritical of you to make a demand like that, when you yourself refuse to adhere to it when others pose a question to YOU....you normally come back with nonsensical crap beginning with "IF" and then asking a question yourself without ever answering the one that was asked of YOU.
RE: was HIS suggestion
So, it's not yours, you were presenting another point of view and you don't agree with him. ok fine.
Moving on...YOU claim
Your article with its pie chart assumes a flat tax rate being the same for everyone,
The "pie chart" assumes nothing it "shows" how income is distributed in America. In fact if you read the article
link to "image above" So there is no confusion. Image above is NOT the pie chart...and it does show different tax rates for different incomes.
In the image above, I gave the example of tax-rate of 0% on the working-class person that makes $25,000 dollars a year .
Isn't what's written above what you were asking for when you said
Actually, if you look at both of the links, especially the first one, you will see that the lower pay scale people would pay nothing at all because there would be a low-'ceiling' as to where the tax rate base would begin.
"0%" and "nothing" that's the same thing isn't it?
Back to Speakeasy forum
(Page 1 of 4)