Job Numbers are not realistic

**Confed999** · 29 Sep 04,, 00:37

Originally Posted by barrowaj

So where is that money saved going? Into the pockets of the execs...

When an exec saves money that exec usually gets a raise in pay. Saved money is made money. Until governments/unions realize that every tax/fee/registration/requirement to have an employee costs money that doesn't have to be paid for foreign labor, jobs will continue to be outsourced. Plan your education and careers accordingly.

**Praxus** · 29 Sep 04,, 01:56

Another interesting fact is that forign companies have outsourced over twice as many jobs to the United States as American companies have oursourced to the rest of the world.

Its interesting that CEOs in 2003 earn more than 300 times the pay of an average worker, where in 1980, that ratio was only 42:1. This exponentially growing gap is the reason the tax curve is progressive.

Why does that matter? Both the rich and the "poor" are getting richer, so how much more the rich make then the "poor" is completly irrelivent.

Say person A makes $10,000 in 2003 and person B makes $100,000. Now lets say that person A makes $13,000 in 2004 and person B makes $1,300,000. Both people are becoming wealthier.

**TruthSpeak** · 29 Sep 04,, 06:10

Originally Posted by Praxus

Another interesting fact is that forign companies have outsourced over twice as many jobs to the United States as American companies have oursourced to the rest of the world.

Why does that matter? Both the rich and the "poor" are getting richer, so how much more the rich make then the "poor" is completly irrelivent.

Say person A makes $10,000 in 2003 and person B makes $100,000. Now lets say that person A makes $13,000 in 2004 and person B makes $1,300,000. Both people are becoming wealthier.

Because in liberal world money is not earned, its distributed. Nobody makes money for their family, they make it for the government, and the government gives some of it back to them and decides what to do with the rest.

This is why liberals say the government "cant afford" tax cuts. What part cant they afford??

Tax cuts isnt GIVING money to anybody, they are letting people KEEP what they fucking earned. But not in liberal world.

See, this goes back to liberals lust for government expansion. If they can get you to rely on liberal government, then liberals will stay in power, even if it means tearing down the democracy that gives them the freedom to be in power in the first place.

I present liberals with Bill # HR-25. Fair Tax Act. The first thing that pops into their regulating brains is that the rich pay a smaller percentage (number) of taxes. They immediately tear down the bill. However, what they never see, and what they fail to present when they talk about it, is that the poor (people making below the poverty line - the ones liberals are always trying to save) dont pay any taxes at all under HR-25, and every american gets a rebate check for their tax ammount up to the poverty line. They also get to keep every cent of every paycheck they earn.

Liberals are so blinded by their lust for regulation, that they will destroy a bill that works for the progress of the very people they are trying to help. They say no just because it looks as if the rich will benefit as well. Which in reality, is opposite of the truth...the rich will pay more in taxes because they buy more things and they buy expensive things.

Why don't liberals see this? Because liberals are emotion driven, not reality driven. This is the case on most (not all) of the issues they support.

**barrowaj** · 30 Sep 04,, 04:35

Originally Posted by TruthSpeak

Because in liberal world money is not earned, its distributed. Nobody makes money for their family, they make it for the government, and the government gives some of it back to them and decides what to do with the rest.

This is why liberals say the government "cant afford" tax cuts. What part cant they afford??

Tax cuts isnt GIVING money to anybody, they are letting people KEEP what they fucking earned. But not in liberal world.

See, this goes back to liberals lust for government expansion. If they can get you to rely on liberal government, then liberals will stay in power, even if it means tearing down the democracy that gives them the freedom to be in power in the first place.

I present liberals with Bill # HR-25. Fair Tax Act. The first thing that pops into their regulating brains is that the rich pay a smaller percentage (number) of taxes. They immediately tear down the bill. However, what they never see, and what they fail to present when they talk about it, is that the poor (people making below the poverty line - the ones liberals are always trying to save) dont pay any taxes at all under HR-25, and every american gets a rebate check for their tax ammount up to the poverty line. They also get to keep every cent of every paycheck they earn.

Liberals are so blinded by their lust for regulation, that they will destroy a bill that works for the progress of the very people they are trying to help. They say no just because it looks as if the rich will benefit as well. Which in reality, is opposite of the truth...the rich will pay more in taxes because they buy more things and they buy expensive things.

Why don't liberals see this? Because liberals are emotion driven, not reality driven. This is the case on most (not all) of the issues they support.

This is a bunch of hogwash. By constructing your liberal straw man and providing for us what he beleives in, you justify your claims. Put words in your own mouth, not mine. No American is for any government buruacracies that are not useful. The debate is about the relative value of each part of government. I would rather not have the government spend my tax dollars on a bloated military that gets involved in international fiascoes that I do not support in the first place.

The government "affords" to give tax cuts because it has a budget.

And why should you call the tax code unfair? Wouldn't a flat tax rate be unfair as well because the rich still pay more in taxes? Why should we not switch to having a fixed fee, that pays for all of the services the government provides for us. If you can't pay it, then you don't have to. Because that would be absurd.

Read my response to Praxis below for more info...

**barrowaj** · 30 Sep 04,, 04:45

Originally Posted by Praxus

Another interesting fact is that forign companies have outsourced over twice as many jobs to the United States as American companies have oursourced to the rest of the world.

That may be true, I don't have a problem with outsourcing, I just have a problem with the government giving tax breaks and subsidies to those that do.

Originally Posted by Praxus

Why does that matter? Both the rich and the "poor" are getting richer, so how much more the rich make then the "poor" is completly irrelivent.
Say person A makes $10,000 in 2003 and person B makes $100,000. Now lets say that person A makes $13,000 in 2004 and person B makes $1,300,000. Both people are becoming wealthier.

Your logic makes sense, but problems arise when wealth becomes concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer people.

1. If you are given money by your parents have you truly earned it?
2. People that control the money control the politics of our country.
3. The unskilled worker is still relevant because his labor is still worth something in today's world. In the future, automation and technical advances will render unskilled labor essentially worthless

The idea is not to simply earn all the money and distribute it around, but have the rich bear a greater burden according to their relative ability.

**TruthSpeak** · 30 Sep 04,, 14:54

Originally Posted by barrowaj

This is a bunch of hogwash. By constructing your liberal straw man and providing for us what he beleives in, you justify your claims. Put words in your own mouth, not mine.

I guarantee you have the same stance on HR-25...even though you havent read it.

I guarantee you are the liberal straw man. I'll prove it.

No American is for any government buruacracies that are not useful. The debate is about the relative value of each part of government. I would rather not have the government spend my tax dollars on a bloated military that gets involved in international fiascoes that I do not support in the first place.

No, instead of protecting the country, you would rather have the government spend our money to save a tree, or a poor person. Right? You little welfare lover.

And why should you call the tax code unfair?

Because the percentage you pay is based on the class you live in. Its not fair.

Wouldn't a flat tax rate be unfair as well because the rich still pay more in taxes?

No, the rich should ALWAYS pay more money in taxes. They SHOULD NOT pay a higher percentage.

Why should we not switch to having a fixed fee, that pays for all of the services the government provides for us. If you can't pay it, then you don't have to. Because that would be absurd.

Read my response to Praxis below for more info...

WTF????

Go read about HR-25.
http://www.fairtax.org/

Its perfection.

And I guarantee you will come back here saying all the bad things about it...beacuse you wont understand it. What you will be saying is wrong, I will tell you that right now, because I've done this to over 50 liberals now...and then I will proceed to show you why your statements about HR-25 are wrong.

Sound good? Good.

**Confed999** · 01 Oct 04,, 01:28

Originally Posted by TruthSpeak

Go read about HR-25.

I read it, loved it. http://www.salestax.org/ has an ok summary. I would like to sit down and discuss the exact ramifications with a conservative, and a liberal, economist though...

**barrowaj** · 01 Oct 04,, 21:24

Originally Posted by TruthSpeak

No, instead of protecting the country, you would rather have the government spend our money to save a tree, or a poor person. Right? You little welfare lover.

Pssh. No, protecting the country and its citizens is our highest priority. However, one of the ways you protect the American people is to ensure the environment they live in is healthy. This is why I am against pollution. I don't think that animals and trees are somehow sacred, but because economic growth at the expense of the environment is not growth in the long run.

Environmental damage is an economic cost to society that is external to the capitalist system.

Originally Posted by TruthSpeak

Because the percentage you pay is based on the class you live in. Its not fair.

How is a fixed percentage even fair? Its just a linear equation applied to earnings. Lets say that everyone is taxed at a 20% rate, then T=.2*E . However, a progressive tax rate is simply a nonlinear equation (well, nonlinear in the sense of the order of the equation for you math freaks). So isn't the only completely FAIR tax a fix fee that must be paid by each person?

Originally Posted by TruthSpeak

And I guarantee you will come back here saying all the bad things about it...beacuse you wont understand it. What you will be saying is wrong, I will tell you that right now, because I've done this to over 50 liberals now...and then I will proceed to show you why your statements about HR-25 are wrong.

Sound good? Good.

Ok, I haven't had time to fully read the fair tax plan, but from what I understand, it is essentially a fixed rate sales tax. I'm familiar with the concept. And by the way, I never made any objections to HR-25 previously, just against your derisive generalizations you made about "liberals." The fact that we don't have to pay to have an IRS, and don't have to fill out tax return forms is absolutely fantastic. But I have a couple objections to HR-25 as it stands. I haven't had time to fully digest the bill, so correct me if I am wrong.

First, since it is purely a fixed rate sales tax, it is essentially the same thing as a flat tax (minus the tax rebate for essential items). Instead, what needs to happen is that luxury goods should be taxed at a higher RATE than normal common goods. This could be done by creating a statistical price index for each good.

Second, there is no tax on gifts. There should instead be a 100% tax on gifts. Rich families passing down their wealth to their future generations is immoral. This is nepotism, and a relic of feudalism. In a true capitalist system, prosperity is EARNED, not INHERITED.

**Prodigal Son** · 01 Oct 04,, 21:48

Where is this "knowledge" that conservatives are pro-free market come from or likes small government? Non-defense spending has skyrocketed faster under a completely GOP-controlled federal government than any other government in the last 30 years. The GOP is no more free-market/small government than leftist Dems -- they just represent a different set of economic producer groups.

**Confed999** · 02 Oct 04,, 01:10

Neither Republicans or Democrats are politically conservative. The only two national parties that are politically conservative, that I know of, are the Constitution Party and the Libertarian Party.

Constitution Party http://www.constitutionparty.com/
Libertarian Party http://www.lp.org/

**Prodigal Son** · 02 Oct 04,, 15:04

And yet, people seem to think Republicans are more in favor of free-market principles than Democrats. What's good for GM is not necessarily good for America.

America works best under divided government.

**Confed999** · 02 Oct 04,, 16:59

Originally Posted by Prodigal Son

America works best under divided government.

IMHO, America has done it's best under politically conservative government. The party system has just served to create a country of people who politicize every single little thing, even if they agree with it.

**Prodigal Son** · 03 Oct 04,, 17:27

Originally Posted by Prodigal Son
America works best under divided government.

IMHO, America has done it's best under politically conservative government. The party system has just served to create a country of people who politicize every single little thing, even if they agree with it.

Define what you mean by conservative. Conservatives are those who believe the state should regulate social issues and reduce civil liberties while keeping state intervention into the economy to a minimum. That's why the GOP doesn't want government to tell you how to make, sell, or buy a bed, but will be glad to have the government tell you what you can do while you're in it.

:-) Oh, and it was the good conservatives of the South that kept Jim Crow up and running well into the 20th century.

**Confed999** · 03 Oct 04,, 17:35

Originally Posted by Prodigal Son

Define what you mean by conservative. Conservatives are those who believe the state should regulate social issues and reduce civil liberties while keeping state intervention into the economy to a minimum. That's why the GOP doesn't want government to tell you how to make, sell, or buy a bed, but will be glad to have the government tell you what you can do while you're in it.

:-) Oh, and it was the good conservatives of the South that kept Jim Crow up and running well into the 20th century.

I'm sorry, I do that all the time. Right wing and conservative have come to mesh in most people's vocabulary and I often forget that. I meant politically conservative, with the smallest government possible. Way back, when the government didn't try to do everything itself.

Oh, and I assure you, there are plenty of biggots, no matter conservative, liberal, or anywhere between.