How would raising taxes affect you and our economy?

[UncleBuck]

This argument is very questionable. Buck doesn't even work anymore. All he does is "grow and sell pretty flowers" according to him. Sometimes he claims hes a treadmill salesman, which obviously isn't doing to well if hes making 22k a year. But then he goes and makes fun of some guy in another thread for failing at running his own business because he works everyday of the week.

I am coming to the conclusion he has some sort of bi-polar in him. Either that, or he's just a compulsive liar who will say anything to back up his argument.

i didn't say he failed at running his business, i said he was doing it stupidly if he could never take a day off.

 

[UncleBuck]

No, not at all, just ignorant.
Almost everyone calls them taxes. But when you tell everyone you pay more federal income taxes than Mitt Romney, you're just short on the facts. Contributions to Social security, medicare, and state withholding's, are not federal income taxes.

so you only want to count some of my taxes in my effective tax rate?

i would think that my tax rate would include all taxes. apparently not.

 

[nontheist]

i didn't say he failed at running his business, i said he was doing it stupidly if he could never take a day off.

Actually what that point was is how disappointing it is for Obama to pull off his 100th trip to the gold course and saying he is in "touch" with hard working Americans. It pretty obvious Unclebeck has no understand of running a successful business. You must be the first one to arrive and that last to leave everyday, you must stay in constant contact, and always available. You must make sure you clients are happy and your workers happy, you have to fill in when an employee is down and still do your job. I would lose my ass off if I was fucking around on a gold course all the time. It consumes about 16 hours a day, not stop and there isn't anything such thing as weekends. Thats what it takes to be successful, anything else is half-assed and you wont make it, because you always have competition. For every 12 hours of physical work I put in, I am rewarded with 4 hours of paper work. You have to take pride in what you do and how good you do it because it makes punching a time clock at a 9 to 5er feel like a vacation. He also made some stupid ass comment that his uncle or something fucks off and makes 500k a year, what a joke.

 

[UncleBuck]

Actually what that point was is how disappointing it is for Obama to pull off his 100th trip to the gold course and saying he is in "touch" with hard working Americans.

100 rounds in 3.5 years? why, that's about a round of golf every two weeks or so. that's about on par with the time i spend on golf. except i don't get any business done during a round of golf.

what do you do twice a month for leisure? 6 hour masturbation session? paint murals? underwater basket weaving?

excuse me for playing a round of golf every other week and saying that i still work hard. clearly, 6 hours over the course of two weeks is inexcusable. thank you, massah.

It pretty obvious Unclebeck has no understand of running a successful business. You must be the first one to arrive and that last to leave everyday, you must stay in constant contact, and always available.

check.

You must make sure you clients are happy and your workers happy, you have to fill in when an employee is down and still do your job.

check.

I would lose my ass off if I was fucking around on a gold course all the time.

6 hours of leisure every two weeks is not "all the time".

if you do not take at least 6 hours of leisure every two weeks, you are going to be a grouchy old twatwaffle that no one enjoys. ever.

It consumes about 16 hours a day, not stop and there isn't anything such thing as weekends. Thats what it takes to be successful, anything else is half-assed and you wont make it, because you always have competition.

16 hours every day?

you pussy.

i am ON 24/7 for 4 months in a row. then i spend a month of 12 hour days trimming. then it's back to part time, where i can enjoy 8 hours of beauty rest like you.

since those other 16 hours are all work, i assume you pass out at your desk and immediately awake to resume work, no time on rollitup, no time to shower, no time to pet your dog or have a smoke. sad way to go through life.

He also made some stupid ass comment that his uncle or something fucks off and makes 500k a year, what a joke.

pa in law.

and he does not fuck off, he is just smart enough to know the right people to look after his apartment complexes and other investments that he is not on the job 16 hours a day, 7 days a week as you proclaim to be.

something tells me you are some sort of paid poster or just otherwise a douchebag who owns no business. care to tell us a little about what you do for a living, stranger?

 

[nontheist]

1




16 hours every day?

you pussy.

i am ON 24/7 for 4 months in a row. then i spend a month of 12 hour days trimming. then it's back to part time, where i can enjoy 8 hours of beauty rest like you.

since those other 16 hours are all work, i assume you pass out at your desk and immediately awake to resume work, no time on rollitup, no time to shower, no time to pet your dog or have a smoke. sad way to go through life.



pa in law.

and he does not fuck off, he is just smart enough to know the right people to look after his apartment complexes and other investments that he is not on the job 16 hours a day, 7 days a week as you proclaim to be.

something tells me you are some sort of paid poster or just otherwise a douchebag who owns no business. care to tell us a little about what you do for a living, stranger?

I am not grouchy, I am just an asshole I have no excuses. I am know not to tolerate stupid well, and I will call your ass out on it.

Second, I have tried to delegate some parts of business to other people but I have found a problem when getting into finances. First if you have someone capable of running a job and working with clients, my competition is in his ear. Then when they see the money per job ratio, they start getting greedy and feel they need a bigger cut but fail to realize of the overhead that needs to be taken out and equipment depreciation. Once an employee *thinks* he isn't being compensated enough he is worthless and can't be trusted from that point on, increasing his salary is only a part time fix that never lasts long. I had a secretary of 5 years steal close to 30k from me in two months, she knew she would be caught but done it anyway. So yeah I have learned two important rules, know one cares about your business like you do its a 9-5 for them. Second snakes always smile.

As for my job I already said what I did in past post, I have 4 companies, Electrical, Plumbing, Utilities, and a supply store (also I sub two guys that do nothing but vehicle and machine maint. The first 3 work out of the same yard but have different job descriptions and work on large projects work together. The electrical and plumbing are self explanatory, the utility is not. We put just about anything in the ground, electrical, water main, sewer main, etc. I am a master Plumber and Electrician in 3 states I hold a class A water and Sewer lic, So I design and build water and sewer treatment facilities that you drink out of, ground water control so your neighborhood doesn't flood when it rains. So you can brag about you trimming all day long, I want to see you carry the one 0 two (102# bar used to manhandle large pipe) down in a 15 foot ditch in 115 degree weather and drive pipe for 10 hours. Then come talk to me about your trimming. The supply company I had to open because my local supply was so fragmented and employed twawaffles, I have now ran the main supply chains out of business. Why? Because you cant trust your company to other people.

 

[canndo]

The money Bush said was ours and was to be paid back went to more entitlements, besides it's out of Bush's hands now, Barack Obama is the president, he will decide whether we get that money paid back or not, are ya holding your breath on that one? LOL

Silly lib, how can we have a surplus to pay down the debt when we spend more than we take in, are you for real?
We need to cut spending and trim the budget, how about a balanced budget amendment to force these knuckleheads to quit spending money that we don't have!

As it stands today, we pay over $225billion a year in the interest on our debt, if we did what Obama and the democrats want and just tax the rich, that will bring in between $60-$80billion annually, and that's just the interest! Our budget deficit is 1.3Trillion per year, or $1,300billion.
$1,300billion - $80billion in more tax revenue from the rich, still leaves a $1,220billion annual deficit, got any other brilliant plans?

Let us begin at the beginning here Beenthere, "he (Obama) will decide whether we get that money paid back or not" - So first we ignore the cartoon that prompted this, the one that indicates that EVERY republican president has made the deficit and thus the debt larger but you are expecting me to hold my breath over Obama coming to the rescue? Conservatives - going around breaking things and then getting to complain that the things they break don't work.

No one says to "just" tax the rich except the right in their addled conception of reality. On the one hand they claim that "the revenue from the rich doesn't amount to much" while on the other they look to trimming nickles and dimes as "adding up" to real money. You don't get to have it both ways, revenue can be counted in nickles and dimes as well. 80 billion dollars is still a lot of money. Here is the problem. You would claim that taking 80 billion from those in real need is a significant start in balancing the budget, wouldn't you?

 

[UncleBuck]

I am know not to tolerate stupid well...

Second, I have tried to delegate some parts of business to other people but I have found a problem when getting into finances. First if you have someone capable of running a job and working with clients, my competition is in his ear. Then when they see the money per job ratio, they start getting greedy and feel they need a bigger cut...

maybe you're being a dick and not treating your employees right. that's what it sounds like to me.

my pa in law gives my employees incentive. he knows what the annual operating budget is going to be for each complex (within reason) and if they come in under budget, the excess gets sent right back to them at the end of the year as bonus. working alongside them, they think about that bonus just about every moment of every day.

 

[UncleBuck]

Let us begin at the beginning here Beenthere, "he (Obama) will decide whether we get that money paid back or not" - So first we ignore the cartoon that prompted this, the one that indicates that EVERY republican president has made the deficit and thus the debt larger but you are expecting me to hold my breath over Obama coming to the rescue? Conservatives - going around breaking things and then getting to complain that the things they break don't work.

No one says to "just" tax the rich except the right in their addled conception of reality. On the one hand they claim that "the revenue from the rich doesn't amount to much" while on the other they look to trimming nickles and dimes as "adding up" to real money. You don't get to have it both ways, revenue can be counted in nickles and dimes as well. 80 billion dollars is still a lot of money. Here is the problem. You would claim that taking 80 billion from those in real need is a significant start in balancing the budget, wouldn't you?

all we need to do is get rid of NPR and the deficit will go away. oh, planned parenthood too.

 

[beenthere]

Let us begin at the beginning here Beenthere, "he (Obama) will decide whether we get that money paid back or not" - So first we ignore the cartoon that prompted this, the one that indicates that EVERY republican president has made the deficit and thus the debt larger but you are expecting me to hold my breath over Obama coming to the rescue?

I'm expected to respond to cartoons! LOL

Canndo, it's a cartoon, and a deceiving one at that.
There has not been a budget surplus by any president in my lifetime, your cartoon depicts President Clinton with a surplus, cmon, this fallacy has been debunked for years. Clinton borrowed almost $1trillion from SS to pay down the public debt while claiming to have a budget surplus, when in fact, he was robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Besides these facts, President Clinton had a republican controlled House and Senate, would you like to tell us all who has the power of budgetary legislation?

As you can see, the national debt went up every year Clinton was in office.

Conservatives - going around breaking things and then getting to complain that the things they break don't work.

No one says to "just" tax the rich except the right in their addled conception of reality.

Have you been living under a rock or what, your comment above confirms how out of touch you really are!

Let's see you provide any link that refutes my claim that the Obama administration is wanting to raise income taxes ONLY on people making over $200k a year. I'll be waiting for this one!

On the one hand they claim that "the revenue from the rich doesn't amount to much" while on the other they look to trimming nickles and dimes as "adding up" to real money. You don't get to have it both ways, revenue can be counted in nickles and dimes as well. 80 billion dollars is still a lot of money. Here is the problem. You would claim that taking 80 billion from those in real need is a significant start in balancing the budget, wouldn't you?

The myth that conservatives want lower taxes to protect the rich is just that, a myth. The reason they are consistently opposed to raising taxes on ANYONE (rich, poor or middle class) is to keep money in the hands of the private sector and limit government growth.

Can you cite any republican bill that targeted raising taxes on everyone but the rich, that would be protecting them in my mind.

Let's talk about taxes and debt. I believe $80billion is a lot of money, but I also understand that when our government spends over $1000billion a year we don't have, it's impossible to tax our way out of it, we have to make drastic cuts or our economy will collapse. Raising taxes perpetuates spending, the more we tax, the more we spend, this is a fact I guarantee that you or anyone else cannot refute.


I believe I addressed all of your questions, now it's your turn.

 

[canndo]

I'm expected to respond to cartoons! LOL

Canndo, it's a cartoon, and a deceiving one at that.
There has not been a budget surplus by any president in my lifetime, your cartoon depicts President Clinton with a surplus, cmon, this fallacy has been debunked for years. Clinton borrowed almost $1trillion from SS to pay down the public debt while claiming to have a budget surplus, when in fact, he was robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Besides these facts, President Clinton had a republican controlled House and Senate, would you like to tell us all who has the power of budgetary legislation?

As you can see, the national debt went up every year Clinton was in office.




Have you been living under a rock or what, your comment above confirms how out of touch you really are!

Let's see you provide any link that refutes my claim that the Obama administration is wanting to raise income taxes ONLY on people making over $200k a year. I'll be waiting for this one!



The myth that conservatives want lower taxes to protect the rich is just that, a myth. The reason they are consistently opposed to raising taxes on ANYONE (rich, poor or middle class) is to keep money in the hands of the private sector and limit government growth.

Can you cite any republican bill that targeted raising taxes on everyone but the rich, that would be protecting them in my mind.

Let's talk about taxes and debt. I believe $80billion is a lot of money, but I also understand that when our government spends over $1000billion a year we don't have, it's impossible to tax our way out of it, we have to make drastic cuts or our economy will collapse. Raising taxes perpetuates spending, the more we tax, the more we spend, this is a fact I guarantee that you or anyone else cannot refute.


I believe I addressed all of your questions, now it's your turn.

Actually you addressed the questions but not the angle of my argument. You claim that we should (ala Norquist) starve the beast until it can be drowned but gee, under Republican leadership that beast doesn't shrink. I will agree with you that Clinton didn't achieve a real surplus but the point is the same.

1. You would wish to esentialy take from the poor who need government services in order to preserve the whole of the rich's wealth by reducing government outlay while reducing taxes.
2. No, we don't see overt taxation of the middle class while not taxing the upper class, but the effect is the same and you know it.
3. When you can actually show me where Republicans cut spending in anticipation of cutting taxes, then we can talk about starving that beast, until then the only difference between Repubs and Dems is what I said, Repubs spend and borrow Dems spend and tax - the more prudent, if spending is a given (which it is) is to tax more.

What you are doing is blending what "should" be happening with what does happen, of course we should have smaller, more efficient government, of course we should spend exactly what we take in and take in exactly what we spend but that isn't what happens. Given what happens more often than not - especially in the modern age, let us talk about reality. Nice graph. I like graphs.

 

[abandonconflict]

 

[abandonconflict]

 

[abandonconflict]

 

[abandonconflict]

 

[abandonconflict]

Morning is time for cartoons.

 

[abandonconflict]

 

[UncleBuck]

and hash browns. i'm going to cook me some.

 

[abandonconflict]

 

[abandonconflict]

This is deceptive, the Tax Cuts DID create jobs, just not in Amercia.

 

[beenthere]

Actually you addressed the questions but not the angle of my argument. You claim that we should (ala Norquist) starve the beast until it can be drowned but gee, under Republican leadership that beast doesn't shrink. I will agree with you that Clinton didn't achieve a real surplus but the point is the same.

The stark difference I see between you and I is, I'm blaming all politicians, not just democrats. When I say cut spending drastically, I could care less whether we have democrats or republicans that are responsible for the cutting. But I will support a conservative approach to lowering taxes, especially in a down economy.

1. You would wish to esentialy take from the poor who need government services in order to preserve the whole of the rich's wealth by reducing government outlay while reducing taxes.
2. No, we don't see overt taxation of the middle class while not taxing the upper class, but the effect is the same and you know it.
3. When you can actually show me where Republicans cut spending in anticipation of cutting taxes, then we can talk about starving that beast, until then the only difference between Repubs and Dems is what I said, Repubs spend and borrow Dems spend and tax - the more prudent, if spending is a given (which it is) is to tax more.

1. You can't "take" away something from anyone that doesn't already have possession, and I'm not wanting to preserve the whole of the rich's wealth, I'm wanting to preserve the country, what part of this are you not seeing?
2. This is a strawman and you know it, you couldn't cite a bill to prove conservatives were protecting the rich, how can it be the same effect, when it's never happened?
3. I'm not pro-republican spending, never have been. I can't stand the fact republicans spend like democrats, and I'm not a republican for the record, I'm a registered independent who happens to be a fiscal conservative and a social moderate.

What you are doing is blending what "should" be happening with what does happen, of course we should have smaller, more efficient government, of course we should spend exactly what we take in and take in exactly what we spend but that isn't what happens. Given what happens more often than not - especially in the modern age, let us talk about reality. Nice graph. I like graphs.

You and I are closer than leads on, when you get to the point of blaming the spending democrats as much as the spending republicans, we won't have much to talk about when it comes to federal budgets.