Millonaire tax a bust?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
Now hold on there tacocravo! How dare you insinuate that my overpriced education did not guarantee me a job starting at least $80K a year! How dare you imply that I don't deserve at least a Manager level position fresh out of college. Doesn't matter what the product or service is because I learned all the formulas and business models, and I got an "A" in my Advanced Social Economics for Global Business class. Doesn't matter that I have no practical experience, my MBA has given me all the theory I need to know how to run a company. /sarcasm


 

that is a good question i am going to have to think about that...
 
Well as a matter of fact the American is in fact that, a dream....
A dream that one day you will find a great job.
A dream that one day you will find the perfect woman.
A dream that you will start a family, go on vacations, and live comfortably..
Fact is unless you were born to entitlement or struck gold with brilliant ideas or just had a head start in an emerging market.. It's very hard to make it..

But wait people say it's not that hard go to college and get a good job?
Fact is it's hard to go to college when your born in the bottom rungs of society, once you reach working age one is obligated to begin working and help your family.. Not only that but college costs money.. Education isn't free folks! So now you're taking out loans putting yourself into debt working a job and struggling paycheck to paycheck..

Well if you make it through those days the job isnt done yet, depending on degree and time it takes to even find a job, one will probably be in over $30,000 in dept for a simple RN nursing degree or up to $100,000 depending on length and cost of schools..
Now your income is being sucked up for the next 5 years or so and by the time the debts gone your 30 years old..

Now your living the dream aren't you?

Now for people who have the connections to the jobs, the schooling, theyre simply guided through no worries about debt mother and father can pay for that..
Im not saying all rich people pay for everything for their children but some do..

But what do I know, it all comes down to laziness and no drive.. People seem to be content with their lifestyle in the bottom rungs, but those who yearn to be in the top are simply unable to because once a corporation takes over a market there is no room for local businesses and manufacturing and all the ones around have a stranglehold on it...

Just a little about what I though mostly me rambling on..
 
I find it strange that there is always talk about how everybody needs to go to college to get a great job! Truth is most people that are in college don't need to be in college (trust me I know). My mother and father cannot pay my college debit but I know I will snag a pretty good job went I graduate soon. Also I am an engineering major so that's guaranteed. At my university and as well as most universities, most people who graduate with engineering degrees are not US citizens but citizens of other countries. That's stupid. There are so many damn people out there who graduate that are lawyers and not enough people that actually can help this damn country out. It seems like the American Dream has become a sense of "how quick can I get rich without any effort attached" like winning the lottery since they don't want to work hard.

To tell me that people cannot find a job is stupid. They don't want to find a job. I was laid off of my job for several months and the attitudes of the people truly disgust me. They "attempted" to look for jobs just to satisfy the requirements of getting unemployment. I have talked to many people who are satisfied being unemployed. Hell even I was getting a pretty decent check sitting on my ass doing nothing. Seems to me that the true American Dream is to sit on one's ass, bitch about things that don't concern them, eat and getting fat, complaining about immigrants taking jobs, complaining about the rich and how they have all the money and don't pay their fair share, and in the process wasting my taxpayer's dollars in doing so.
 

im growing up knowin my parents wont be able to pay for my college. with the recession went my parents college savings for me. there are not a lot of people like me in school. i am not the smartest in my class but i work the hardest. I have gotten all a's and i am taking all the honors and ap classes i can. i feel i can get a full ride scholarship to many decent schools. schools are easy to get into and easy to pay for if people work as hard as i do. but like you said people are content with laziness and lack of success.
 
Why go with calculations when we have history which doesn't rely on assumptions..... put the tax rates where they were the last time we had a budget surplus ...... pre the 1st Bush.

As for college ....any one have any idea why college loans run 9 - 10 % while the prime sits at 1/2 % .... who's pocketing that 9.5 % ?
 


Well its simple because the millionaires are the ones keeping us employed, if they dont make money the rest of us don't make money (unless working for the gov)
 

you are correct people do not need to go to college to have a great job. a viable option for many people is to learn a trade. We will always need electricians, mechanics, and plumbers. heck they aren't the greatest jobs but if you work your way up you can easily make 100k and up (before taxes).
 


I guess its simple I believe that you should work hard for lng enough to pay for your family then be able to retire with diginity after giving a company 30-40 years of my life and not lose my pension while the guy who crashed the company gets paid out a 20 million dollar bonus, and to see part of the profit margins produced by a company being more and more profitable every year.

If the company makes 8% growth at year end my family get to see a 8% over last years wage instead of 2.5 or less.
 


Even I as a canadian and this would not appl to me it seems that there is a lot to be gained by putting more moeny in peoples pockets then the final 9% sales tax brings in just as much as before only people are able to save more for themselves and that is a good thing
 

its ingenious. that is real change for you not that bs obama was throwing out. all the change he brought was even more spending.
 
Stand by for RANT:

The primary reasons I am politically conservative (well, more than I used to be) are:
1. I am tired of supporting the 48% of the US that do not pay federal income taxes. Among other things, I realize that anybody, through no fault of his own, can end up needing help. But when you have third generation welfare families, there is something wrong with the system.
2. And as a tax payer, I am really tired of [strike]bailing out[/strike] rescuing people from their own bad decisions. I bought a house about 10 years ago. Did everything right - did not buy more house than I needed, put 20% down, and financed only the principle for 15 years (did not finance first year insurance or taxes).And yet, I'm stuck with the bailout bill.

Cash for Clunkers - I have a 1991 Camry (born in a non-union auto plant in Lexington, Kentucky). Because it still gets better than 30 mpg on the highway at 65 mph, it doesn't qualify for the program. Yet I'm helping to pay for down payments for people with 5 year old, Detroit built gas guzzlers.

I am also apparently one of those people who is delaying the recovery because I am pretty much sitting on my money instead of spending it. Except for a house payment, we have no consumer debt. we do not carry a balance on our credit cards.

I remember when saving was good.

I am also the first in my family with a college degree - mostly at night in Europe while I was in the Army there. That's rough when you are working a 60+ hour week.
 
JSC I gotta saythat the non union stuff is no good, they are there to keep people from being treated unfairly, the toyota you speak of costs more han its US equivilant by a fair margin granted it is a better make, but those unions were put there to protect the workers from losing ground. Toyota has been profiting by leaps and bounds in comparison by on the backs of the hardworking american dreamers And as can be seen by the return of GMC and Chevy since these sad bailout times it was never the workers fault the company was not profitable its the designers of the pontiac asteck and Chevy Cavalier and the dodge everything that drove the company into the ground, and who pays for it aside from the tax payers the poor people who worked hard before the current workers to build up a respectable living for thise who followed them into these unions.

Blaming a union is really mssguided, they do not cause cars to be expensive and ill designed but it is really easy to put it on them.

PS I drive a toyota corola cause the NA competitors are well crap.
I don't feel it is the non union workers who caused this because the car is deffinately more expensive.

billions were thrown at poor management and design and yet the unions (the same people buiding the better products payed with 5-10 dollars and hour in lost wages it just seems wrong
 
When we talk about income, we don't take into account accumulated wealth in this country. Income is only the flow of money, while wealth can be compared to the big lakes of money that accumulates wherever there is an obstruction to the flow of money. In some ways, massive accumulations of wealth can become a hinderance to the effective workings of a capitalist economy. With this current recession, we are seeing exactly this problem.

Right now, with the cost of debt as low as it is, we should be seeing banks willingly giving out loans hand over fist to anyone who asks for it. Corporations should be taking out loans to grow their businesses. But banks are not willing to risk more defaults in an already-shaky economy, and are instead taking actions to increase their revenue stream on the backs of its customers. And corporations, rather than expending money to grow, are raising the prices of their goods and services to facilitate the accumulation of stockpiles of reserve cash because demand is low in this down economy.

So, right now, the more money you give to the wealthy (owners of banks and corporations) is going to end up accumulated rather than expended into the economy. Giving money to the wealthy at this point is only going to exacerbate the situation.

Instead, if you give money to the average consumer, it will be spent. It will either go to pay off debt or it will flow into the economy as consumer purchases. This could very well spur demand and cause companies to start spending cash to expand again. Paying off debt will ease the fears some banks have with lending money and they will once again start loaning money to the average person.

Voodoo economics works sometimes, but in our situation, it won't work, since the pressures that are limiting growth right now are not rational. This is one situation where we must, quite honestly, spend our way out of this recession to spur job growth. And the spending needs to start from the bottom, not the top.
 


Where do you suppose the bottom get the money to spend? From the Top? From a handout?

The corporations are going to get what they fear, a very depressed economy. The problem is when you tighten up your wallet everything else gets tighter and so on, till you cause what you fear.


"The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."
-Princess Leia-
 

i think he is saying the money would come from the government. instead of that stupid stimulus give the money to us. i think the number was about 2000$ per person and he is right it would be spent.
 
Where did the government get the money to spend on the corporate bailouts? If you go back and study the fundamentals of Keynesian economic theory, in order to lessen the wide swings of recession and progression of the economy, the government is supposed to use spending and taxing policies to spend more during recessions and lower taxes, and during progressions, they are supposed to reduce spending and increase taxes. This way, we do not see the wild vicissitudes that our economy experienced before we started following the Keynesian model are much.

The problem with our government is that once budget is built, it becomes very difficult to cut spending year by year, since the nature of a bureaucracy is to fulfill needs on an ongoing basis, which leads to ever-increasing budgets as the scope of these services creeps into ever larger roles. So we see governemnt growing ever larger, with larger and larger deficits from year to year.

On the other side of the fence, raising taxes in today's political environment is tantamount to suicide for any politician's career. So instead of increasing the tax burden to offset the deficits from lean years, we just keep building up larger deficits until we end up with a huge national debt that is impossible to pay.

The pickle we are in was built over the last 4 decades, and has only been exacerbated over the last 20 years. Under the Clinton administration (and the Republican-controlled congress) we had a chance at actually making headway in fighting this problem. But then GW stepped in, and the Democrat-led congress was more than happy to let him run up the bill. Add to that two wars that were never really on the books, and then follow up with the Obama administration with two rounds of bailouts to American corporate interests, we see that this debt has just been piling up.

Well, our pigeons came home to roost. Now, not only is our economy stagnant, but we have nearly exhausted our means of getting it moving again. Instead, any money that gets into the system ends up floating into a wealth accumulation pool without going back into the economy for reinvestment.

Who is to blame for all this? We could blame either the Republicans or Democrats, but I would say a lot of the blame is on both of them. But the majority of the blame is on you and I, the average American citizen. We continue to elect people into office who only look out for their own interests, whether it be their party's interests, or their own electability for the next term. What we need are a few less politicians and a few more statesmen who are willing to make hard decisions and compromise to get legislation through to fix the problems. Sure, we can have Republicans who fight any new taxes tooth and nail, or we can have Democrats who view any budget cuts as an affront to civilization, but in order to get where we need to go, we need to both cut budgets and increase taxes. But before we can do this, we need to jumpstart the economy yet one more time, and we can't do this by paying the wealthy even more money just to let it sit. We need to send money where it will be spent. Public projects that improve public infrastructure is just one way to stimulate the economy. Tax rebates are another way. Hell, sending out checks to any and every taxpayer (i.e., you sent in a tax return last year, you get a check) will do a lot more to stimulate the economy than sending money to corporate America.
 

they never had the money were in defecit before the economy even turned sour. We need to balance the budget first off. look at canada for example- they have a balanced budget finally and they had a surplus last year and are going to have a surplus this year. They also have a lower corporate tax rate in the US which shocked me because they always had higher taxes than the US.
 
Less responses to this question than I figured there would be.

My vision of the American Dream; life, liberty, and the unadulterated pursuit of happiness without government regulation, intervention, coercion, or limitation on what I choose to do with my property, capital, and creativity while seeking personal and individual fulfillment of my financial, material, and spiritual goals.

 


That was my point. And yes, we need to balance the budget, but this should not be done by forcing a balanced budget amendment down Congress' throat. There will be times when it makes good sense to have a budget deficit (i.e., war, recession, etc.), but there also needs to be statesmen willing to make the hard decision to cut budgets and raise taxes to pay off that deficit in subsequent years. And this is where we have fallen down. Instead, it is more politically expedient to continue with large budget deficits and continuing to build a national debt, until the debt becomes so large that the government can't do anything but default on it.

Republican'ts are more than willing to cut budgets, as long as you don't cut defense spending. Demo-craps are more than willing to raise taxes, as long as it's only on the wealthy. I'm here to say we need to do both, and everyone should pay a part, especially those who can most afford to pay.

I'm an avid proponent of a single-payer health plan system. Why? You want to know one reason why Canada is solvent? Because they spend about a 25% in health care per citizen than what we do here in the USA. We bleed billions of dollars into an industry that is extremely wasteful, from the insurance to the actual provider. we need to switch to a single payer, and it doesn't have to be a govt. system. Look at Germany. They use a private insurance/private provider system, and it's worked very well since the late 1800s, even through two world wars. But we need to stop insurance providers from spending wasteful dollars lobbying for the right to continue fleecing Americans of hard-earned money, and refocus health providers on providing the best care possible instead of worrying whether or not you are going to be able to pay for that quality care.

How would you feel if your house was on fire, and as soon as the fire dept. showed up, the first thing you had to do before they could get started putting out the fire was fill out some paperwork? Or before the cops come out to get the burgler you hear banging around downstairs, they require you to pay a co-payment to cover the expense of the officer coming out to your house? Yet we deal with this every time we go see the doctor. And I hate to tell you this, but those other countries that spend less on healthcare than we do? They actually get better service with better outcomes. All that for less money.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom