Biden/Liberal Bullshit...

[Left Seater]

Run up those CC and just pay them off every month.
You are the absolutely most myopic POS I have ever encountered.

When my mom was alive she did the credit card thing. Travelled all over the world on a very limited income.

Like I said, we have a mixed economy.

The midget proves his ignorance again. No one should "run up" cards. People should just use cards for their spending instead of cash or whatever other means of payment they are currently spending on. Spend only what you normally would and not a penny more and get a rebate for that spending. And if collecting points/miles isn't something of value to them, they should at least put the spend on a 2% cash back card each month.

You mom sounds like a smart lady. It really isn't a "thing" though. It is just getting a rebate on the spend you already make every month.

And this goes for everyone who posts here, if you aren't getting points or miles you should be getting cash back each month at a minimum.

[Kierland]

You are ignoring me remember, you fat fucking POS.

Thank god for Darwin.

[Diego in Seattle]

In 2019 40% of Americans couldn't afford a $400 emergency expense.

But hey...."just throw it on the credit card!"

LTECSeater

[Mikey]

In 2019 40% of Americans couldn't afford a $400 emergency expense.

But hey...."just throw it on the credit card!"

LTECSeater

It’s only because they’re not working hard enough.

[Left Seater]

In 2019 40% of Americans couldn't afford a $400 emergency expense.

But hey...."just throw it on the credit card!"

LTECSeater

Keep attacking that straw man.

You remain pitiful.

Do you not put your day to day spend on a credit card?

[Kierland]

You are an idiot. It’s not a Straw man fatty it’s an example of why your take is shit.

Fuck off nazti.

[ML@Coyote]

In 2019 40% of Americans couldn't afford a $400 emergency expense.

That's an alarming statistic. What do you specifically propose as a solution? Mandated higher wages for workers? Limits on compensation for upper management? State control of entities providing goods and services? Money management classes for the 40%. Lower taxes for the 40% and higher taxes for the rest of the population? Government financial assistance for emergency expenses? Something else?

[Diego in Seattle]

In 2019 40% of Americans couldn't afford a $400 emergency expense.

That's an alarming statistic. What do you specifically propose as a solution? Mandated higher wages for workers?

Yes. If the wages of workers doesn't allow them to keep their heads above water then they certainly aren't buying products (which provides profits & jobs). And look at how our economy was doing in the 50's when union membership was at it's highest. Higher wages for the working class fuels the economy.

Limits on compensation for upper management?

Yes. Limit the highest paid executive back to the 400X the lowest paid workers like it used to be. Want more money? Bring everyone up with you.

State control of entities providing goods and services?

I see. You don't think that businesses should be regulated. Please see what has happened to our economy during the periods of greatest deregulation. And if they don't like that they're free to not take any tax breaks.

Money management classes for the 40%.

You need to read the book below. The numbers are obviously dated, but the situation hasn't changed much comparatively. Because apparently you need a class on what money management looks like for the poor.

Lower taxes for the 40% and higher taxes for the rest of the population?

Lower taxes aren't really the problem. It's low wages. "Lower taxes" is just a scam for the wealthy to get windfalls (as evidenced by the 2017 GOP Tax Scam).

[Kierland]

50%, one time, tax on Wealth over one million.
Income tax of 50% on income over one million.
75% on income over 10 million.
99% on income over 25 million.

The rich have two choices, according to history, a haircut or a pitchfork.


———-
ML@TuckerCarlson has many questions, just no real answers.

[ML@Coyote]

If the wages of workers doesn't allow them to keep their heads above water then they certainly aren't buying products (which provides profits & jobs). And look at how our economy was doing in the 50's when union membership was at it's highest. Higher wages for the working class fuels the economy.

There are those who will argue two things. One, that higher wages will cause higher prices for goods and services. Also, some will argue that more money chasing after these goods and services will also cause prices to rise. Do you think inflation will result from raising wages? And do you think this inflation will effectively defeat the gains made in raising wages?

Limit the highest paid executive back to the 400X the lowest paid workers like it used to be. Want more money? Bring everyone up with you.

Taking your example earlier of Best Buy, They have 102,000 employees. An 11 million salary for the CEO amounts to an annual raise of about $108 per employee. This barely seems to scratch the surface. Do you agree?

I see. You don't think that businesses should be regulated. Please see what has happened to our economy during the periods of greatest deregulation. And if they don't like that they're free to not take any tax breaks.

Actually, I didn't say there should be no deregulation. Nor did I say there should be less. I was simply asking a question. Do you think government involvement in private enterprises would benefit the economy and help achieve the higher wages for workers that you're seeking?

You need to read the book below. The numbers are obviously dated, but the situation hasn't changed much comparatively. Because apparently you need a class on what money management looks like for the poor.

The original question concerned 40% of Americans being unable to afford a $400 emergency bill. I don't think 40% of Americans are poor. Or do you disagree with me? My observation has been that most people spend what they get, and few people save for emergencies. I think it's human nature. I think a lot of people could do a better job managing their money.

Lower taxes aren't really the problem. It's low wages. "Lower taxes" is just a scam for the wealthy to get windfalls (as evidenced by the 2017 GOP Tax Scam).

Lower taxes means you have more money to spend, so I disagree with you here. It is effectively raising wages. If a shift in tax responsibility was done poorly in the past, that doesn't mean it couldn't be done right. And you could argue that shifting tax responsibility from the lower wage earners to the higher wage earners might not cause inflation. The same net number of dollars would be chasing after the same number of goods, and the cost of goods and services would not increase due to higher wages.

Anyway, those are some thoughts :)

[smackaholic]

The trust fund socialist apparently thinks “the rich” has money just fall into their laps, like it did him.

Many of these rich busted their asses to make their money. Some just did well on investments.

If you tell either of these groups, especially the investors that they’ll hand over a large chunk of their money, they will change behavior.

Why risk capital if you’ve got to give over half of the prospective earning?

The sort of kind of rich, who have enough to comfortably live out their days, but not enough to risk a 40% loss, will sit on it and be happy with whatever their Tbills get them. Or they’ll just offshore it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Left Seater]

Yes. If the wages of workers doesn't allow them to keep their heads above water then they certainly aren't buying products (which provides profits & jobs). And look at how our economy was doing in the 50's when union membership was at it's highest. Higher wages for the working class fuels the economy.

Why are you assuming it is a wage issue? Just because you artifically hand people more money, doesn't solve the issue of not having an emergency fund. There are plenty of instances of people "living paycheck to paycheck" and making $50K or more a year. The issue generally isn't wages, it is spending and the lack of control on spending. See also Congress. And if people want to join a union, they are free to do so. What people should not have to do is join a union in order to accept a job. Unions also stifle going above and beyond, when there is no incentive to do so? Why produce more or offer better service than your fellow workers when that isn't rewarded or compensated? Again, if that is how people want to be employed so be it, it should be their choice.

Yes. Limit the highest paid executive back to the 400X the lowest paid workers like it used to be. Want more money? Bring everyone up with you.

So you want a minimum wage and a maximum wage. Why do you care what someone makes on the top end? If the employees feel that the compensation at the top is excessive, they have options available to them. If you as a consumer don't like it, you are free not to purchase their products or use their services. Further much of the executive compensation is in the form of stock. If as you say the executive lifts the entire company the stock will increase in value. If the executive fails and the company suffers, the value of their holdings fall. So what you want is pretty much already happening.

You need to read the book below. The numbers are obviously dated, but the situation hasn't changed much comparatively. Because apparently you need a class on what money management looks like for the poor.

I will be happy to read the book. But money management hasn't changed much during my life, including when I was just out of school and struggling. I will get back to you after reading the book.

Lower taxes aren't really the problem. It's low wages. "Lower taxes" is just a scam for the wealthy to get windfalls (as evidenced by the 2017 GOP Tax Scam).

Here you go with wages again and completely assume it is the issue. Spending is the real issue most people have and they don't want to admit it, again see also Congress. The reduction in taxes is hardly a scam. Our taxes in this country are out of control. The first thing that needs to be eliminated completely is the Capital Gains Tax. That should absolutely be 0 tomorrow. Why should Joe and Janet Blow work hard all their life and pay for 30 years on a mortgage. Joe passes away and Janet who is retired decides she should sell the house and move to AZ where her kids are. Meanwhile her home has increased in value by $400K since she and Joe purchased it. Why they hell should Janet have to pay a capital gain on that home when she and Joe used their after tax dollars to pay for that home over their lifetimes?

There are plenty more examples of our idiotic taxes in this country. But the 2017 reduction is hardly a scam. If you want to discuss a scam, we can talk about Senile Joe wanting to hand out all kinds of free money, or Senile Joe wanting to eliminate debt, or Senile Joe denying inflation.

[Kierland]

Another 10,000 words of crap from the guy who betrayed his country and won’t spend five words defending it.

Fuck off you fat POS.

[ML@Coyote]

There is always going to be a percentage of people in any country who has difficulty making ends meet. I don't care about lazy people. They don't interest me. But I do care about people who, for whatever reason, work hard at their jobs, live modestly, and still have great difficulty paying their bills. I don't think a mandated pay raise is the answer. This will only be self-defeating when inflation kicks in. I think the best answer is for those who are doing well to take on a greater share of the tax burden. It may seem unfair at first to those who argue that the hardworking risk takers are being punished for their efforts, but really it's just a decent thing to do. There are going to be people in any society who are socially, mentally, or physically hindered in some way and unable to advance themselves. There's nothing wrong with helping them to live decent lives. As for those who achieve success - more power to them!

[Kierland]

I don't think a mandated pay raise is the answer. This will only be self-defeating when inflation kicks in.

So you admit capitalism has no place for the working class. That is a pretty big step. Congrats.

[ML@Coyote]

Not sure where you got the idea that I ever thought capitalism was without any shortcomings. Maybe you're thinking of someone else.

[Kierland]

Quite the shortcoming. :doh:

[smackaholic]

I do think wealthier folks should pay more than they do. But it should t be done with phony high rates that the rich easily avoid.

I would keep the rates fairly close to where they are. Actually, I’d probably make those at the bottom pay a trivial amount, just to let them know what it feels like to actually pay taxes. I would remove all deductions.

No deductions because your SALT are high. That is your problem.

No mortgage deduction. You wanna carry a big mortgage? Fine. I just do t want to subsidize it.

I would do away with all cap gain and corporate tax.

Corporations don’t pay taxes, people do. If the corporation doesn’t pay that tax, it ends up being income to someone. Collect the tax there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ML@Coyote]

Quite the shortcoming. :doh:

Of course if this shortcoming really bothers you, you can always move to your socialist New Zealand where the poverty rate is 15% rather than 10.5%.

[Left Seater]

There is always going to be a percentage of people in any country who has difficulty making ends meet. I don't care about lazy people. They don't interest me. But I do care about people who, for whatever reason, work hard at their jobs, live modestly, and still have great difficulty paying their bills. I don't think a mandated pay raise is the answer. This will only be self-defeating when inflation kicks in. I think the best answer is for those who are doing well to take on a greater share of the tax burden. It may seem unfair at first to those who argue that the hardworking risk takers are being punished for their efforts, but really it's just a decent thing to do. There are going to be people in any society who are socially, mentally, or physically hindered in some way and unable to advance themselves. There's nothing wrong with helping them to live decent lives. As for those who achieve success - more power to them!

I have no problem with those who make more paying more. A flat tax with no deductions accomplishes this.

Take a 15% flat tax. Someone making a million dollars pays $150K in taxes while someone making $30,000 only pays $4500. In this case the rich pays their fare share. This is a much greater share of the tax burden. I would also exempt those making less than say $25K from any taxes. For those with no income other than a salary there would be a simple tax filing that could be done in less than 5 minutes.

And yes we should have a security net for those who are unable to take care of themselves. At the same time there should be an incentive to move off of these safety net programs.

Totally agree with Holic on the SALT deductions. Why should the Feds fund states and cities that choose to have high tax rates. That said we shouldn’t have any deductions.

We should also do away with all Capital Gains taxes and estate taxes. Estate taxes hit those who can’t afford or didn’t plan financially. Those with money just set up family trusts and the like to avoid estate taxes.

I also don’t have an issue with corporate taxes, but those should be 15% at the most.

[Softball Bat]

I have no problem with those who make more paying more. A flat tax with no deductions accomplishes this.

Take a 15% flat tax. Someone making a million dollars pays $150K in taxes while someone making $30,000 only pays $4500.

A flat tax disproportionately punishes the lower earner.
It is really an unfair tax.

$4,500 taken away from someone making $30,000 is much more hurtful than taking $150,000 from someone making $1,000,000.

[Diego in Seattle]

Corporations don’t pay taxes, people do.

Corporations are people. See the Citizens United SCOTUS case.

[Kierland]

Quite the shortcoming. :doh:

Of course if this shortcoming really bothers you, you can always move to your socialist New Zealand where the poverty rate is 15% rather than 10.5%.

America: Love it or leave it.

Not sure why but I expected better from you.

[Kierland]

BrokenPsyche,
Rambling on about how much he cares about the tax code. No mention that he voted for a guy who tried to overthrow the government.

Fat Disgusting POS.

[Softball Bat]

If someone makes $30,000 a year, every dollar spent is significant.
Taking $4,500 from them hurts them a lot.

If you take $150,000 from someone making $1,000,000 a year, they still have $850,000.
Very little hurt in that.


There is no question that the flat tax rapes the low income folks.

The flat tax is the wet dream of the mega-rich.

That's why fat cat S. Forbes was pimping it so hard when he was running for prez.


The flat tax sound fair and logical when you first hear it.

But then when you pause and really think about it, not so much.

[Diego in Seattle]

If someone makes $30,000 a year, every dollar spent is significant.
Taking $4,500 from them hurts them a lot.

If you take $150,000 from someone making $1,000,000 a year, they still have $850,000.
Very little hurt in that.

Exactly.

Taking $4,000 from someone trying to live on $30,000 in San Diego, LA, SF or Seattle is absolutely nuts.

Same with "reducing taxes." If the people living in those cities making $40,000 or less paid zero taxes they'd still be living in poverty.

[ML@Coyote]

Taking $4,000 from someone trying to live on $30,000 in San Diego, LA, SF or Seattle is absolutely nuts.

Agree.

Same with "reducing taxes." If the people living in those cities making $40,000 or less paid zero taxes they'd still be living in poverty.

Don't agree.
One of my sons lived in San Francisco for college, and I paid him well under $40k/year for living expenses. He was not living like a king, but he was not "living in poverty."
My other son lived in Los Angeles after high school, and worked at a job that paid him less than $40k/year. Like his brother, he was not "living in poverty."

[Kierland]

Yeah but it’s not 1972 anymore. :grin:

[Slap]

One of my sons lived in San Francisco for college, and I paid him well under $40k/year for living expenses. He was not living like a king, but he was not "living in poverty."
My other son lived in Los Angeles after high school, and worked at a job that paid him less than $40k/year. Like his brother, he was not "living in poverty."

Hopefully you sent the boys enough scratch so they could visit an Asian Massage Center every once in a while.

[Left Seater]

If someone makes $30,000 a year, every dollar spent is significant.
Taking $4,500 from them hurts them a lot.

If you take $150,000 from someone making $1,000,000 a year, they still have $850,000.
Very little hurt in that.

Exactly.

Taking $4,000 from someone trying to live on $30,000 in San Diego, LA, SF or Seattle is absolutely nuts.

Same with "reducing taxes." If the people living in those cities making $40,000 or less paid zero taxes they'd still be living in poverty.

So exempt completely the first $25K in income. Then throw the tax on the earnings over it.

The same two people from the example above means someone earning $30k now pays $500 in taxes. The million dollar earned pays $146,250 in taxes.

As for claims that a flat tax is the dream of the rich, you would be wrong. A flat tax with no deductions will often get more taxes than our current system. In 2 of the last 3 years my wife and I would have paid more in taxes if there was a flat tax with no deductions.

As for some cities being more expensive, that is life. The city or state can take actions to make their cities/states more liveable.

[Kierland]

Blah blah blah taxes

Not a word about your insurrection.

Fat Greedy Nazti

[Innocent Bystander]

Taking $4,000 from someone trying to live on $30,000 in San Diego, LA, SF or Seattle is absolutely nuts.

Agree.

Same with "reducing taxes." If the people living in those cities making $40,000 or less paid zero taxes they'd still be living in poverty.

Don't agree.
One of my sons lived in San Francisco for college, and I paid him well under $40k/year for living expenses. He was not living like a king, but he was not "living in poverty."
My other son lived in Los Angeles after high school, and worked at a job that paid him less than $40k/year. Like his brother, he was not "living in poverty."

Does LA son resent you for subsidizing San Francisco son? Do you love one less?

[Innocent Bystander]

So exempt completely the first $25K in income. Then throw the tax on the earnings over it.

The same two people from the example above means someone earning $30k now pays $500 in taxes. The million dollar earned pays $146,250 in taxes.

As for claims that a flat tax is the dream of the rich, you would be wrong. A flat tax with no deductions will often get more taxes than our current system. In 2 of the last 3 years my wife and I would have paid more in taxes if there was a flat tax with no deductions.

As for some cities being more expensive, that is life. The city or state can take actions to make their cities/states more liveable.

1. White flight
2. Detroit refusing to sell properties to black investors, while spreading wide for foreign.
3. Bedroom communities only prosper if there's a boardroom/boilerroom community everyone works in.
4. Boardroom communities fail if bedroom communities don't spend the revenue made in boardroom communities, within boardroom communities.
5. The amount you and your wife would have paid under a flat tax is more than many household's gross annual salary, let alone individuals.
6. Go back to points 1, 2, 3, 4 regarding how property taxes are collected.

[ML@Coyote]

Does LA son resent you for subsidizing San Francisco son? Do you love one less?

We made the exact same offer to both of our boys. If they wanted to go to college, we would pay tuition and living expenses. It was the same offer my parents made to me. One son took advantage of the offer, and the other didn't. There is no resentment. In fact, the son who didn't go to college gets angry whenever I offer to help him out financially. He is hellbent on paying his own way. And no, I don't love one son more than the other.

[ML@Coyote]

As for some cities being more expensive, that is life.

This is kind of interesting:

The average national annual salary of a convenience store clerk in America is $21,249

San Francisco: $39,249
Los Angeles: $35,498
San Diego: $34,265
Seattle: $36,397

https://www.ziprecruiter.com/Salaries/C ... erk-Salary

[Left Seater]

As for some cities being more expensive, that is life.

This is kind of interesting:

The average national annual salary of a convenience store clerk in America is $21,249

San Francisco: $39,249
Los Angeles: $35,498
San Diego: $34,265
Seattle: $36,397

https://www.ziprecruiter.com/Salaries/C ... erk-Salary

Yeah, that makes sense. It likely takes far more pay to attract a clerk in San Francisco than it does in Des Moines.

[Left Seater]

1. White flight
2. Detroit refusing to sell properties to black investors, while spreading wide for foreign.
3. Bedroom communities only prosper if there's a boardroom/boilerroom community everyone works in.
4. Boardroom communities fail if bedroom communities don't spend the revenue made in boardroom communities, within boardroom communities.
5. The amount you and your wife would have paid under a flat tax is more than many household's gross annual salary, let alone individuals.
6. Go back to points 1, 2, 3, 4 regarding how property taxes are collected.

White flight is a bit generic. Major cities were already segregated and not only by race. There were Italian neighborhoods, Jewish neighborhoods, Irish neighborhoods, etc. The flight was much more based on socioeconomic factors. Plus as the boomers started families, why not raise that family in a home with a yard and less crime and trash.

3) Completely disagree. Bedroom communities are doing what they can to attract service companies. Who wants to spend an hour commuting downtown when you can have your small business 5 minutes from your house?

5) Exactly. With a flax tax we are paying a huge amount of money every year.

[Kierland]

What are cities doing about weeding out the insurrectionists and kleptos ya fat POS.

[Left Seater]

Biden and liberal Democrats America

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatod ... 5149532001

[Kierland]

BrokenPsyche42