Here's What's in the Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 - Page 4
Register Today!- Jan 12 by 22gawhitacreI agree. The flat tax would be the way to go.
Quote from msn10
Years ago, I believe that was the case as well. People had pride and going on government assistance was an embarrassment to many. I too spent my bedside nursing days in an inner city hospital in the most dangerous city in the state. I saw everything, more than most people should. I saw victims of poverty and horrible crimes, and I had no problem helping them as much as I could.
However, in today's world I believe we are seeing more takers than makers. I am not talking about hospital patients. No matter what brings them there, I will take care of them. Rather, I am talking about our society as a whole. Who do we want to be as a nation? What do we want to teach our children? We need to promote upward mobility, not dependence. There are too many people who do know how to work the system now, and yes, not all of them are poor. We cannot just keep raising taxes, extending unemployment indefinitely, and writing out stimulus checks. We need to cut spending and cut off the unscrupulous takers. We need to jail some bankers and allow small businesses to hire without a mountain of mandates. The rise in taxes is not affecting the multibillionaires in this country, their accountants will make sure of that. But when we start telling ourselves that those that make over $200,000 are 'rich' then we do not understand the system. IMHO we should have a 15% flat tax without deductions. It would fairer across the board.
- Jan 12 by 22gawhitacreThe union did Hostess in not the CEO. They were being unreasonable so the company went belly up.Quote from aknottedyarnI would like to see the top figure cut off for Social Security much higher. Just over $100,00 is not the same as even a few years ago. With CEOs making millions, and in some cases sucking the life out of a company and emptying the retirements of employees (think Twinkies) it does not make sense to give them a break. They have already taken from the people who will need SS in the future.
I think $200,000 is more in line with today's pay of the upper end of workers.HM-8404 likes this. - Jan 12 by aknottedyarnI certainly do not think $200,000 is "rich". It is richer than those earning $100,000 and they do not pay an equal percentage of that income in SS.
I do think corporations can be very rich and still pay no taxes, in fact be given fantastic treatment by our government. I would not want a flat tax. We know that this would be an unfair burden on those who are poor. Many cannot make more. Not everyone is set up to be an educational whiz kid. We do not pay some jobs well even though we have high expectations for those positions. A grocery bagger does not make a great deal. Perhaps this is the highest level of position he/she is capable of getting. We expect our milk not to be placed with laundry detergent. We expect our eggs to not get broken. Perhaps it is not as difficult a job as balancing a budget for an oil company to know what to say to maximize government contributions while maximizing contributions to specific legislators. If you have ever gotten home with broken eggs you can appreciate the bagger a great deal more. If your taxes just went up and you realize these same oil companies are paying little or no tax, have lied continuously about fracking, and try to stop development of solar energy, well, you might be willing to look at alternatives other than increasing taxes to the poor while these others skate free.herring_RN likes this. - Jan 12 by aknottedyarnQuote from 22gawhitacreLook again. The CEO's, the last 5-6 have sucked every last penny they could out of the retirement and blamed it on the union who gave and gave.Union Claims Hostess Executives Received Raises In Advance Of Bankruptcy (CORRECTION)The union did Hostess in not the CEO. They were being unreasonable so the company went belly up.
Hostess CEO to receive $1.95M in pay following liquidation, Slate says | al.comtewdles likes this. - Jan 12 by msn10The flat tax that was proposed was for those making over $50,000 per year. Those under that salary would not pay any FIT.I would not want a flat tax. We know that this would be an unfair burden on those who are poor. Many cannot make more. Not everyone is set up to be an educational whiz kid. We do not pay some jobs well even though we have high expectations for those positions. A grocery bagger does not make a great deal
- Jan 13 by 22gawhitacreQuote from aknottedyarnIt's irrelevant. The fact is the union caused it and that is the end of the story. They got greedy and now they have nothing and I have little sympathy for the workers. They deserve what they got. The company told them they were gonna liquidate if they did not accept the agreement.Look again. The CEO's, the last 5-6 have sucked every last penny they could out of the retirement and blamed it on the union who gave and gave.Union Claims Hostess Executives Received Raises In Advance Of Bankruptcy (CORRECTION)
Hostess CEO to receive $1.95M in pay following liquidation, Slate says | al.com - Jan 13 by aknottedyarnQuote from 22gawhitacreObviously you do not follow a story over time. If you did you would know more of the story. This story goes about over 30 years. Management had been abysmal and never got better or updated as tastes changed. Workers do not make management decisions. They had to follow the plans of the CEOs. Of course the CEOs changed more often than most people get their teeth cleaned. The management and the company would like you to believe it was the fault of the workers. There are somethings that cannot be tolerated. Continued theft of the retirement funds to fund CEOs golden parachutes while telling workers that could not afford anything to help workers had to have some effects.It's irrelevant. The fact is the union caused it and that is the end of the story. They got greedy and now they have nothing and I have little sympathy for the workers. They deserve what they got. The company told them they were gonna liquidate if they did not accept the agreement.herring_RN likes this.
- Jan 13 by tntrnSomewhere in that 30 years the economy wasn't as bad as it is now and those workers could have chosen to find different employment.
- Jan 13 by 22gawhitacrethey should have sought employment elsewhere then if they thought they were getting a raw deal for 30 years. The purpose of a business is not to provide jobs but to make a profit.Quote from aknottedyarnObviously you do not follow a story over time. If you did you would know more of the story. This story goes about over 30 years. Management had been abysmal and never got better or updated as tastes changed. Workers do not make management decisions. They had to follow the plans of the CEOs. Of course the CEOs changed more often than most people get their teeth cleaned. The management and the company would like you to believe it was the fault of the workers. There are somethings that cannot be tolerated. Continued theft of the retirement funds to fund CEOs golden parachutes while telling workers that could not afford anything to help workers had to have some effects.
- Jan 13 by herring_RNQuote from 22gawhitacreThe CEO didn't tell the workers their money was being diverted.they should have sought employment elsewhere then if they thought they were getting a raw deal for 30 years. The purpose of a business is not to provide jobs but to make a profit.
Daily Kos: Hostess took workers' pension money to fund itselftewdles and aknottedyarn like this.