Welcome to NEFF

Sign up for a new account today, or log on with your old account!
Register

Give us a try!

Welcome back to the new NEFF. Take a break from Twitter and Facebook. You don't go to Dicks for your fly fishing gear, you go to your local fly fishing store. Enjoy!

Presidential Candidate Q & A on Recreational Fishing

Please don't misinterpret "fortunate". I have worked all my life and consider myself fortunate. I have no complaints with my lifestyle. Payroll taxes, which fund the big entitlement programs, hit low-income households harder than most since 100% of their income is subject to them. High-income filers pay a lower percentage of their income in payroll taxes since wages subject to the Social Security tax are capped at $110,100. Many wealthy filers pay no payroll taxes at all because they are not on a "payroll". This is not a class or party argument. It is economic. Middle class and low-income spenders are the engine of the economy. When they have money to spend, it creates demand, and corporations must grow to create the supply to meet the demand. Currently corporations are making record profits and sitting on trillions in cash but are not growing because there is a lack of demand. I am not in favor of handouts. I believe that everybody that can work should work, but when they do, they should earn a living wage, and yes, pay proportionately lower taxes, and create the demand for the widgets that corporations supply. Individual businesses, driven solely by their bottom lines, keep labor costs low by employing as few people as they can to meet demand and paying them as little as they can. Contrary to conservative belief, the government does produce jobs when it invests in education, public safety, and infrastructure. The money that these people earn, both gov't employees and private contractors, comes right back into the economy,creating demand which is the only thing that spurs corporate growth. So you see any loss in corporate revenue and profit is temporary. It comes right back to them, but now more people are working, increasing the tax base and ultimately cutting government costs by lowering the number of people needing government assistance.
 
You can try to call this anything you want, but class warfare is being used as a tool to fool the masses and get votes. Today at lunch I heard an Obama campaign ad on the radio, and the exact words that they used were "make the wealthy pay their fair share". It has nothing to do with belief, just the fact of what is being said. Go search the internet, you'll probably find the ad somewhere.
 
Let me address the payroll question first. Since the average salary in the USA is around 50k anyone paying 110k or more is paying twice what the average salary worker pays. It goes up every year. I'm sure in your mind it would be fair to have no cap but please explain to me how that makes any sense since you can be pretty much assured that "the rich" will have their benefits cut in the future via means testing. And since social security and Medicare is in trouble largely due to government borrowing from SS and waste,fraud, and abuse in medicare what would the purpose of giving them more money be other than to continue to borrow it and waste it. Now you claim many wealthy filers pay no payroll tax and the word many generally means a lot so what's the number in your mind. The reality is that very few folks pay no payroll taxes. With the advent of globalization, corporate interests stretch beyond the bounds of our shores. On the other hand small and medium business has emerged as the main driver of economic growth in the U.S. since most small businesses file as individuals just the payroll tax increase alone is a deterrent to expanding jobs and opportunity. I could add on the enormous impact of the affordable care act which will hurt businesses with more then 50 employees. There are trillions of dollars sitting outside the U.S and that's where they will stay until someone gets smart and provides a realistic tax amnesty policy to bring that money home. Again big business is global not nationalistic.

The government does not create jobs: it creates economic policies that either foster job growth or hurt job growth. Corporations and people assess those policies and make decisions about whether to risk their own capital and intellectual capacity to form new business, expand business, or contract. It's really that simple.

Investing in education at the federal level has both a cost and a benefit. As a country we spend more per student than any other country yet are nowhere near the top. The answer seems to be we need to invest more but of course it's verboten to ask what happened to the investment that was made. The DOE has a budget of 50 Plus billion dollars. How much of that reaches the classroom?

Your last sentence seems to indicate that things are getting better. The main measure of whether an economy is improving is in GDP growth. This has been tending down not up. It's somewhere south of 2% and that equates to no growth in real terms.

fishhead said:
Please don't misinterpret "fortunate". I have worked all my life and consider myself fortunate. I have no complaints with my lifestyle. Payroll taxes, which fund the big entitlement programs, hit low-income households harder than most since 100% of their income is subject to them. High-income filers pay a lower percentage of their income in payroll taxes since wages subject to the Social Security tax are capped at $110,100. Many wealthy filers pay no payroll taxes at all because they are not on a "payroll". This is not a class or party argument. It is economic. Middle class and low-income spenders are the engine of the economy. When they have money to spend, it creates demand, and corporations must grow to create the supply to meet the demand. Currently corporations are making record profits and sitting on trillions in cash but are not growing because there is a lack of demand. I am not in favor of handouts. I believe that everybody that can work should work, but when they do, they should earn a living wage, and yes, pay proportionately lower taxes, and create the demand for the widgets that corporations supply. Individual businesses, driven solely by their bottom lines, keep labor costs low by employing as few people as they can to meet demand and paying them as little as they can. Contrary to conservative belief, the government does produce jobs when it invests in education, public safety, and infrastructure. The money that these people earn, both gov't employees and private contractors, comes right back into the economy,creating demand which is the only thing that spurs corporate growth. So you see any loss in corporate revenue and profit is temporary. It comes right back to them, but now more people are working, increasing the tax base and ultimately cutting government costs by lowering the number of people needing government assistance.
Click to expand...
 
You are correct. I believe that no cap would be fair, and presently there is no such means testing. Government most certainly does create jobs, or did the over 600,000 government workers who were laid off in 2011 just imagine they lost a job. Tax amnesty was granted in 2009 and 2011. Demand creates jobs-it's just that simple. Payroll taxes and providing workers with affordable health care would be no deterrent for a small or medium sized business that is growing to meet increased demand. It is sad when we look out more for the interests of global corporations than we do for our own workers.
 
wow 6 pages of back an forth with a lil education for me.
All I can say is without moderates in both parties at the house and senate and no bi partisanship....................... we are screwed.:nopity:

Yes it is the same old music...but sooner or later we are going to face the music.
 
Presently there are a bunch of iOUs sitting in the imaginary lock box called the social security trust. There depending on what estimates you wish to you use over over 25 million baby boomers retiring in the next 20 years, and the unfunded obligations to provide them entitlements range from 60- 80 trillion dollars. So anyone that tells you that will get full SS and Medicare is just being dishonest. means testing, age increases, and other modifications are coming to a theater near you. No cap on social security means an extra 5 grand out of my pocket. According to you I'm rich so I should just pay it. It's nice for you to be so liberal with money that i have earned especially since I am a ways off from retirement and will likely see reduced benefits. While I would prefer to save it, invest it, put away for my 3 kids college funds, or maybe take a vacation I guess I will give it to uncle Sam. After all he has been so responsible with the money I have given him thus far.

If you equate the governement hiring people with creating jobs wonderful. But the fact is those jobs are paid for by the taxpayer and again let's look at the costs associated with hiring and paying these folks. I'll be back for the rest of this tonight
fishhead said:
You are correct. I believe that no cap would be fair, and presently there is no such means testing. Government most certainly does create jobs, or did the over 600,000 government workers who were laid off in 2011 just imagine they lost a job. Tax amnesty was granted in 2009 and 2011. Demand creates jobs-it's just that simple. Payroll taxes and providing workers with affordable health care would be no deterrent for a small or medium sized business that is growing to meet increased demand. It is sad when we look out more for the interests of global corporations than we do for our own workers.
Click to expand...
 
Currently ssi is projected to be solvent until 2037, and yes some changes must be made. Doing quick math, your additional SSI tax burden of 5000 would have you making somewhere in the area of 220K, so I guess you're doing alright. Should the burden fall on people making more or less than you? I am glad that your children are "fortunate" enough to have parents that will be able to send them to college. My children are fortunate, too.
 
Please tell me you are kidding. Of the 16 trillion in on the books debt that we currently have almost 5 trillion is intra govt debt owed to the SSA. If we get a modest credit downgrade in the near future our interest on the debt gets ugly real fast. A projection is basically a guess and lately the guessing has gotten pretty bad. The Di portion of SS goes upside down pretty soon. The projections of solvency were cut by 4 years to 2033.medicare gets hit much sooner and the claims by the administeation that it's preserved because of what they did with the 716 billion dollars fails to mention that they are artificially keeping it whole with a temporary program this year that is billed as experimental ( read shit we are making up so no one finds out until after the election)

Now you asked a question of who should carry the burden of the looming entitlement changes. The answer is my opinion is irrelevant because the math says it will fall on me. Ok that's life and I accept it but to suggest that I should pay more and get less is just crazy talk. Especially when the extra money I pay is going to be spent by the federal government largely on programs and shit we can do without. In the history of our nation we have never considered spending less, cutting waste, and livng withing our means a virtue. So you will forgive me if I am reluctant to pay more in payroll, federal, state, local, and other taxes until such time as our government cuts spending, eliminates the waste, and comes up with a rational plan to reduce our debt. At that point anyone that is able to pay should put something in the till. Joe Biden thinks its the patriotic thing to do.

fishhead said:
Currently ssi is projected to be solvent until 2037, and yes some changes must be made. Doing quick math, your additional SSI tax burden of 5000 would have you making somewhere in the area of 220K, so I guess you're doing alright. Should the burden fall on people making more or less than you? I am glad that your children are "fortunate" enough to have parents that will be able to send them to college. My children are fortunate, too.
Click to expand...
 
In short, do any of you boobs think we have trillions of dollars of national debt because we don't collect enough in taxes or because we spend too much?
 
The facts and numbers never lie, The Government tries to hide them and manipulate them but the ugly truth keeps popping up. Case in point (Don’t you find it alarming that the decrease in the unemployed directly considers with the rise in food stamp recipients. So the facts suggest when an individuals unemployment benefits are extinguished, they are eligible for food stamps and welfare. This also shows a favorable decrease in the unemployment rate.) (Blatant numbers manipulation) If you take you head out of the sand and look at the big picture. The facts are there. The truth is; we have a Government that has an insatiable apatite for its citizen’s money. There are not enough monetary resources in the world that can quell that.
 
tomfly said:
The facts and numbers never lie, The Government tries to hide them and manipulate them but the ugly truth keeps popping up. Case in point (Don’t you find it alarming that the decrease in the unemployed directly considers with the rise in food stamp recipients. So the facts suggest when an individuals unemployment benefits are extinguished, they are eligible for food stamps and welfare. This also shows a favorable decrease in the unemployment rate.) (Blatant numbers manipulation) If you take you head out of the sand and look at the big picture. The facts are there. The truth is; we have a Government that has an insatiable apatite for its citizen’s money. There are not enough monetary resources in the world that can quell that.
Click to expand...

The problem is, both sides of the aisle have this problem...republicans talk a good game....smaller government..less spending..lower taxes, but it never works out that way...and to put the topper on that, they are hypocrites and push a religious agenda...Democrats do support the (how should I say it?) not wealthy to get votes, and they are also lying jackasses who pander to anyone for a vote....and lie to us all....what do we do when the entire government has only the interests of their donors and special interest groups in mind? There is a quote from Thomas Jefferson....
Periodic revolution, “at least once every 20 years,” was “a medicine necessary for the sound health of government.”

Here is another I find interesting....
"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country"(too late for this one)
and another...
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not"
The people who created this country were not stupid, and I firmly believe their ideals hold sway with what is happening now.....
I have one more thing to say to the Republicans and Democrats that run our country today...:finger::looser:s
 
I don't think that it has been hidden that we are coming out of the worst recession since the Great Depression. We got in this mess through tax cuts, two wars, unfunded prescription plans, individual and corporate greed manifested in unscrupulous practices, and a downturn in the global economy.The cutting of jobs by government but especially by private business and corporations did lead to high unemployment and many people collecting benefits and becoming eligible for food stamps. The result is an upward spiral of debt caused by increased government spending on the social safety net and lower revenues because less people are working and paying taxes. When there are jobs, there are few legitimate reasons not to work and take care of yourself and family, but I do not begrudge folks accepting government assistance when they can't find work. Life on unemployment, welfare, or food stamps is not an existence that I envy, and I do not resent those that accept government help to survive. Jobs are created by business responding to demand by hiring workers. Corporations are not creating the jobs our country needs despite record profits and large cash reserves because there is no demand. We need to put America back to work repairing and improving our roads, bridges, schools, ports, airports, and the electric grid. All of this work is done by private businesses using American workers. The money they earn will give them the ability to buy and create the demand for other businesses to grow. The workers will be contributing to the tax revenues and be subtracted from the social welfare roles. The truly needy must be cared for, but those that can work should work, and if they don't, they should lose benefits. It is time that those who can most afford it invest in rebuilding America. The improved economy will pay dividends on their investment. I know that this means higher taxes for some and short term increases government spending and the deficit, but I have yet to see any other solution that makes sense.
 
What I think you are saying is, we got in this mess because republicans started acting like democrats....... And your solution is exactly what we have had for years of under obama.
 
lightenup said:
The problem is, both sides of the aisle have this problem...republicans talk a good game....smaller government..less spending..lower taxes, but it never works out that way...and to put the topper on that, they are hypocrites and push a religious agenda...Democrats do support the (how should I say it?) not wealthy to get votes, and they are also lying jackasses who pander to anyone for a vote....and lie to us all....what do we do when the entire government has only the interests of their donors and special interest groups in mind? There is a quote from Thomas Jefferson....
Periodic revolution, “at least once every 20 years,” was “a medicine necessary for the sound health of government.”

Here is another I find interesting....
"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country"(too late for this one)
and another...
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not"
The people who created this country were not stupid, and I firmly believe their ideals hold sway with what is happening now.....
I have one more thing to say to the Republicans and Democrats that run our country today...:finger::looser:s
Click to expand...

I agree, but if you are going to quote our founders you must also believe they would overwhelmingly be considered conservatives by todays standards....
 
Not really. Not a lot of infrastructure spending was approved by house and absolutely no tax hikes, not even on the very wealthiest.
 
fishhead said:
Not really. Not a lot of infrastructure spending was approved by house and absolutely no tax hikes, not even on the very wealthiest.
Click to expand...

Fishhead, why do you think the "wealthy" should pay taxes at a higher rate than anyone else? And, you should also understand that article 1 section 8 of our US Constitution states that all taxes should be uniform. Doesn't say each shall pay according to his ability, that would be the Communist Manifesto written by Karl marx, who wasn't nearly as funny as groucho, or the one on your underwear, Skid........
 
In 1913, an amendment to the Constitution was ratified permitting a progressive income tax. There is a lot more to Communism than from each according to his ability-to each according to his need. It calls for state control of all capital and an artificial equality that I agree stifles ambition and productivity. I am a capitalist. I want people to have the opportunity to get rich and stay rich, but I also believe that those who have been able to grow wealthy in our capitalist system can afford to give more back. At this point, for a start, I would like to see the wealthy pay the same rate as we do. The tax rates of the wealthy should not be lower than the rates of the people who clean their office.
 
Trouser Trout said:
I agree, but if you are going to quote our founders you must also believe they would overwhelmingly be considered conservatives by todays standards....
Click to expand...

Yes TT, I believe they would be, but without all the religious rhetoric, and corporate cronyism.....
"
I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country" Thomas Jefferson....
 
fishhead said:
In 1913, an amendment to the Constitution was ratified permitting a progressive income tax. There is a lot more to Communism than from each according to his ability-to each according to his need. It calls for state control of all capital and an artificial equality that I agree stifles ambition and productivity. I am a capitalist. I want people to have the opportunity to get rich and stay rich, but I also believe that those who have been able to grow wealthy in our capitalist system can afford to give more back. At this point, for a start, I would like to see the wealthy pay the same rate as we do. The tax rates of the wealthy should not be lower than the rates of the people who clean their office.
Click to expand...

I find a majority of people who live off the system are not lacking ability, but lacking the drive and determination to be successful ( I did not say all, bad shit happens)...It is much easier to sit home and collect a check... I also agree the tax code needs to be re-written without so many loopholes, but the rich should not be punished for being successful....too much pity in this country..toughen the fuck up!!!!!
 
Fish head you simply paint with too broad a brush. You can't state the wealthy all pay a lower tax rate because you have to first define wealthy and then determine what their tax rates are. As I have said before the with all the supposed tax breaks the "rich" get they are still paying the bulk of fed income tax by a large margin.
 
fishhead said:
In 1913, an amendment to the Constitution was ratified permitting a progressive income tax.
Click to expand...

This is the amendment, it does no such thing as allow a "progressive tax". If so, it's text would have nullified the uniformity clause in Article 1 section 8. The 16th amendment reads as follows. "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration". What it does is allow a federally collected income tax, but it in no way shape or form usurped the uniformity st forth in article 1 section 8.
 
MACFLY said:
Fish head you simply paint with too broad a brush. You can't state the wealthy all pay a lower tax rate because you have to first define wealthy and then determine what their tax rates are. As I have said before the with all the supposed tax breaks the "rich" get they are still paying the bulk of fed income tax by a large margin.
Click to expand...

Correct Mac, and every so-called loophole used by the "rich" is available to everyone.
 
Your "findings" about people who "live off the system" seem to be shared by many these days. There are certainly some that game the system, but I am skeptical of how you reach the conclusion that those lacking drive and determination and find it easier to sit home and collect a check are in the majority. As I have already said, I believe that those that can work-should work, but, especially in the current economic atmosphere, there are a lot fewer "deadbeats" than you want to believe. I don't see a progressive tax rate as punishment when it supports the system that creates the opportunity for success and wealth.
 
"The 16th amendment, which you cited, demonstrates that congress has the power to levy an income tax. The necessary and proper clause:
"The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. Demonstrates that congress may set up the machinery for and income tax in such a way as they see fit including a progressive income tax if they have a legitimate government reason to do so.
Finally the legitimate interest of maximizing tax revenue and minimizing taxpayer hardship provides a legitimate government reason to meet the rational basis test required for constitutionality." (Randomstudent) The final prove of constitutionality is that no wealthy man has brought it before the SCOTUS.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top