GOP considers longer pay freeze

[SteelSaving]

I don't know, do you have an extra $32,500 lying around to create a job with? I don't, so if they want to freeze my salary for a while so that millionares can create more jobs, I guess I can go along with it.

Just to be clear: The Republicans don't want to create more tax cuts for millionaires with their plan to pay for this tax break, they just don't want to raise their taxes and instead want to freeze the pay of government employees. So, the millionaires have the same breaks they had last year. And how many jobs have the been scrambling to create the last couple years? At this point, I feel millionaire welfare is BS. They aren't using the opportunities the government hands them to hire, why? Because it doesn't take more money, it takes more customers. If the government keeps handing them more breaks, why would you want to risk your money on a business or to expand what you currently have? Some complain about the poor wanting to stay poor to keep getting government money, why would rich business owners want to do anything more then they are doing if the government keeps handing them money and tax breaks too?
Why are we, the middle class, racing to the bottom?

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/01/opinion/coburn-welfare-to-wealthy/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

 

[SteelSaving]

Cutting the Social Security Tax last year was really STUPID, now Obama wants to do it again. The system is racing into insolvency and we cut it's resources, I thought Congress was trying to save SSA? It seems that somebody wants it to fail?:nuts:
Your retirement looks less attractive every day.

Yeah, I never understood it. Makes no sense.

 

[nnuut]

Yeah let's Run those rich folks out of business, that's the thing to do. Then we can take their riches and spread the wealth among the 50% that pay NO Taxes that's what we need to stimulate the economy, BUT when they run out of other people's money they will be in the same situation and asking for another handout, something is wrong with that reasoning?

SOMEBODY STOP ME!!!!!:nuts::nuts:​

 

[Mapper]

Yeah let's Run those rich folks out of business, that's the thing to do. Then we can take their riches and spread the wealth among the 50% that pay NO Taxes that's what we need to stimulate the economy, BUT when they run out of other people's money they will be in the same situation and asking for another handout, something is wrong with that reasoning?

SOMEBODY STOP ME!!!!!:nuts::nuts:​

If a 3.25% tax increase is ok for gov't employees then it certainly will not run millionaires out of business. That's simple logic.

 

[Mapper]

Cutting the Social Security Tax last year was really STUPID, now Obama wants to do it again. The system is racing into insolvency and we cut it's resources, I thought Congress was trying to save SSA? It seems that somebody wants it to fail?:nuts:
Your retirement looks less attractive every day.

A Democrat agrees with the GOP to cut a tax and suddenly cutting taxes is STUPID?

SS may be "racing toward insolvency" but it currently has a trust fund and is sitting pretty compared to other mission critical aspects of gov't. I certainly don't support pulling the legs out from under the SS program but how is it better to cut spending on R&D, infrastructure, education, defense, energy and other investments in the future of the country?

SS is not a retirement plan. It's a social safety net (a "welfare" program) that comes into play to support eldery Americans who, for whatever reason, may not have enough money to pay for essential living expenses.

It's time for all of us to actually pay for the services we ask of our government. Any private enterprise relies on govt investments. Asking people who have nothing, or very little, to pay more will get us nowhere. I can pay more and I don't mind if I have to, PROVIDED I'm not paying more simply so those above me can pay less.

 

[nnuut]

If a 3.25% tax increase is ok for gov't employees then it certainly will not run millionaires out of business. That's simple logic.

Let's compare 3.25% of your salary and 3.25% ($32,500) of a millionaire's with $1,000,000 Taxable income and put that on top of , what is it an additional 39% ($390,000) 42.25% = $422,500 Not counting State, County, SSA and City and more and more. Getting rid of loopholes is a better idea.

 

[Mapper]

Let's compare 3.25% of your salary and 3.25% ($32,500) of a millionaire's with $1,000,000 Taxable income and put that on top of , what is it an additional 39% ($390,000) 42.25% = $422,500 Not counting State, County, SSA and City and more and more.

A % is a % is a %. The major difference, in my eyes, is that a millionaire has bigger personal safety net, essentially a pool of "unproductive" money.

edit: Another way to look at it. The % of money someone with over $1 mil taxable income per year needs to cover basic living expenses is much lower (probably by an order of magnitude) minuscule, in fact, compared to the percentage required by the average govt employee.

Getting rid of loopholes is a better idea.

Couldn't agree more.
Too many small business owners I know actually claim no, or very little income, because the "investments" in their business. Once I was watching/playing with a small business owner friend's kids while he ran to the store. The local group providing subsidies for insulation to low income homeowners came by to inspect his home remodeling project as part of his application process. I asked what that was all about and he confided in me that he hadn't made more than $5k in two years. Yet somehow the guy travels the world, for pleasure, owns 4 vehicles, owns a sailboat and is a partial owner of small airplane...that his brother uses to give flying lessons :suspicious:. Off the top of my head I know three small business owners who count their 30'+ sailboats among their "investments". One started the business solely for that purpose because he got a cheaper boat loan that way. Frankly I think that is just plain wrong.

 

[FAAM]

AMEN, Mapper! "To those whom more is 'given', more is expected" & "With greater wealth (or power, authority, etc.) comes greater responsibility", & not "linearly" or at a flat-rate either. At least that's the way it should be, and better be, or I see much more trouble.

 

[Mapper]

A % is a % is a %. The major difference, in my eyes, is that a millionaire has bigger personal safety net, essentially a pool of "unproductive" money.

Another thing I wish more work-a-day Republicans would consider is how protecting the large personal savings pools of the super rich fit into their mantras of efficiency and maximizing utility.

 

[alevin]

SS may be "racing toward insolvency" but it currently has a trust fund and is sitting pretty compared to other mission critical aspects of gov't.

SS is not a retirement plan. It's a social safety net (a "welfare" program) that comes into play to support eldery Americans who, for whatever reason, may not have enough money to pay for essential living expenses.

It's time for all of us to actually pay for the services we ask of our government. Any private enterprise relies on govt investments. Asking people who have nothing, or very little, to pay more will get us nowhere. I can pay more and I don't mind if I have to, PROVIDED I'm not paying more simply so those above me can pay less.

Mapper, I too once thought there was an SS "trust fund". I was mistaken. The "trust fund" is declining because the relative rate of SS collection is declining faster relative to the rate SS is being paid out, even tho we're still net positive on the collections at this point. There is no "SS lockbox". Govt is in hock up to eyeballs without even counting future SS obligations.

 

[WorkFE]

I find it laughable that you all think any of these parties is worth crap.

 

[nnuut]

Another thing I wish more work-a-day Republicans would consider is how protecting the large personal savings pools of the super rich fit into their mantras of efficiency and maximizing utility.

:laugh:
​

 

[Viva_La_Migra]

Another thing I wish more work-a-day Republicans would consider is how protecting the large personal savings pools of the super rich fit into their mantras of efficiency and maximizing utility.

I thought you only wanted more of their annual income. Now you want to go after their savings too?

I've never been employed by a poor person, but I have been employed by a wealthy entrepreneur.

 

[James48843]

:laugh:
View attachment 16403​

Ha! Good one Nnuut. I took me a minute, but then I figured out what this is.

I may be a bit slow at times, but I get it eventually.

 

[nnuut]

Ha! Good one Nnuut. I took me a minute, but then I figured out what this is.

I may be a bit slow at times, but I get it eventually.

Tanks!
​

 

[Mapper]

I thought you only wanted more of their annual income. Now you want to go after their savings too?

I've never been employed by a poor person, but I have been employed by a wealthy entrepreneur.

Not at all what I said. I'm just stating that I don't understand the logical fallacy. Along the same lines as not understanding why suddenly tax cuts are stupid when a Democratic president goes in on it as part of a compromise with Republicans.

What's this sudden poor/rich division? Are you saying anyone making less than $1mil per year is poor? Obviously I don't know for sure but I'd be willing to place a damn large bet that you have been employed by people making under $1mil annually.

I've also been employed by wealthy entrepreneurs, who would not see any additional tax burden from an increase in taxes for those making over $1mil annually. They didn't make anywhere near that much money and still employed as much as 75 individuals. They would, however, feel a pinch from providing increasingly expensive health insurance to their employees. In fact, that company switched to a "Cafeteria" plan specifically to reduce healthcare costs. Another of those employers went out of business during the recent recession because demand for their product dried up. Guess what, their customers were not millionaires, they were regular everyday people that no longer had the extra money to buy his product. He made about $100k/year and managed to employ up to 20 people.

I have also been employed by a business owner who made over $1mil per year, probably well over. There is no way his family business or family would suffer from a 3.25% increase in tax. At best, he would have to spend less than $1.5 million on his frequently replaced motor home. He probably wouldn't mind the additional tax either, he was Democrat. Interestingly a couple of his kids, who grew up in the business were Republicans.

 

[Mapper]

I find it laughable that you all think any of these parties is worth crap.

I don't think either of them are worth crap. US politics is corrupt as hell...but at the moment it's the hand we have.

 

[nasa1974]

I don't think either of them are worth crap. US politics is corrupt as hell...but at the moment it's the hand we have.

+ 1

 

[SteelSaving]

Yeah let's Run those rich folks out of business, that's the thing to do. Then we can take their riches and spread the wealth among the 50% that pay NO Taxes that's what we need to stimulate the economy, BUT when they run out of other people's money they will be in the same situation and asking for another handout, something is wrong with that reasoning?

SOMEBODY STOP ME!!!!!:nuts::nuts:​

And how much sense does it make to tax the middle class (ie the CONSUMERS) even more? The rich have been handed tax cuts and breaks and have so far done jack with it in regard to job creation. Perhaps the reason jobs aren't being created is because there is no demand for more of the crap businesses provide. If I owned a business, I wouldn't hire somebody just because the government hands me $32,500 (which, by the way, is enough to pay an employee making about $16,000/year). I will hire more people when my supply doesn't meet the demand.
At this point, it seems the aim is to hand money to owners trusting them to create jobs in an environment that is not business friendly. Maybe we should increase the purchasing power of the consumer while pulling back on some unneccessary regulations.

 

[RealMoneyIssues]

while pulling back on some unneccessary regulations.

There are no unneccessary regulations...