Thats All I Can Stands...

[secks]

Birdstrike:

You're not a Republican so much as you're a conservative. I'm right there with you on these issues. I won't vote Republican again as long as my vote is taken for granted. If enough conservatives temporarily withdraw their support of the Republican party, politicians will get the message.

My main concerns are immigration and the export of jobs.

The justification for this amnesty program is that illegal laborers perform work that only they are willing to perform. Bull$hit. In the past, these jobs were performed by Americans. There's no reason that trend cannot continue. Furthermore, if the supply of labor is low, then the price offered for that labor must be increased in order to meet labor demand (or the job must be mechanized). Instead of offering higher wages to attract employees, they hire illegal immigrants. These illegals are cheap to employers, but expensive to taxpayers (welfare, medicaid, etc.). Basically, companies reap the benefit, while the taxpayers foot the bill.

Then you've got the rampant exporting of jobs overseas. Who benefits from outsourcing jobs? 1) the people employed overseas 2) the people who are exporting labor. The money saved by outsourcing jobs is absorbed by the company, and only slightly affects the price of goods. Thus, consumers benefit little from outsourcing, and domestic, eligible workers are deprived of a job. Is that really worth saving a few bucks? In a couple of decades, very little will be made or researched domestically. Globalisation is not the friend of the American worker.

 

[Dan CFI/CFII]

A squared:

I billed those rates to customers. I was paid 20 an hour flight, 14 an hour wrenching. (but someone said I was BILLING incorrectly)

Throw in some "interesting" interpretations of timecards and the computer's billing of flight time, automatically remove time for "meetings" (they did provide snacks--that counts as compensation right?), and you start to whittle that way down.

You're right: it doesn't add up. I have pretty accurate records of my flight time billings (but not of ground time), but my time as a mechanic? I didn't keep my own timecards, so I am more or less making educated guesses there, but my margin of error is FAR less than the error in pay.

The bottom line is, I am the most trusting person on the planet. I don't check my pay stubs each week to make sure they agree with what I think they should (I make sure they seem at least close, but that's it). I spent, six or seven days a week, sunup (or just before) to well after sundown, with very little idle time (if I wasn't flying, I was wrenching). In the end, I still took home the abysmal number you saw above. I knew I was getting screwed, so I left. It wasn't until I did my taxes that I started to see just how screwed I got.

I also wasn't there a full year, but had I stayed, it would have been (based on the averages) that sub 10K on my W-2.

You said it yourself: it doesn't add up. That's why the Department of Labor is interested in the matter. I sure don't know all of what happened, but I know the time I spent (roughly), and I know how big the checks were I got to take to my bank. I've certainly moved on, I think it was partly my fault (in that I didn't watch it closely enough while I was there), and I've certainly learned to never, ever work for a crook. I know personal injury attorneys that consider this guy shady... (literally)

Dan

PS-the owner of the place was very politically involved. He made sure to donate lots of money and throw lots of parties for both the Donkeys and the Elephants (in an attempt to get this back on track)

 

[Hawker rider]

I belive that, according to the democrats you are considered "rich" if you make $50.000

All their "all tax breaks are for the rich" is exactly what it is..BS

The thing is the average joe believes it and hollers it out at everyone that wants to listen.

Let's sue somebody and get rich.... we will absolutely never get rid of that mindset, whatever we do.



OK I'll say it, but it sounds awfully right winged... we need to take away the right to vote from the average joe. Only then can we start to look ahead.....

 

[vossdr1]

Hawk rider,
You sound like the ghost of Alexander Hamilton.

Must be 25 and a land owner to vote -yeah, I don't own land, but that doesn't make it a bad idea.

"Once the population finds out how to vote its way into the Republic's coffers, it will be the end of the country."
-Benjamin Franklin

 

[Birdstrike]

I don't mean to go off on a rant, but...

Dubya quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------
"Man I am so tired of the game. Play the poor against the rich. It is a lame argument that only catches the ignorant and uninformed. Just check out the numbers. Its available to anyone willing to take the time to check it out at the IRS website. Over 90% of taxes paid to the federal gov. are paid by the top 50% of wage earners...."
-----------------------------------------------------=------

All well and good but somebody still isn't paying enough since revenue falls significantly short of spending. Somebody needs to pay more to balance the budget. I don''t care if it's the rich or poor or black or blue. We all have to pay to play...or quit spending so much.

Don't play the class warfare card, that's a bunch of cr*p. If I make big bucks I ought to pay big bucks. If that doesn't cover spending, then I get to pay more. It's either that or $500 billion deficits that your kids and grandkids get to enjoy.

Secks and others got it right, globilization, as it's currently being implemented, is no friend of the American worker.

 

[bart]

All well and good but somebody still isn't paying enough since revenue falls significantly short of spending.

You might consider someone is spending too much. In my mind that is the real fact of the matter.

I see it as someone is spending too much and needs to stop.

 

[flint4xx]

A TAX CUT PARABLE::: [Chicago Tribunr - 04Mar01]

Every night, 10 men met at a restaurant for dinner. At the end of the meal, the bill would arrive. They owed $100 for the food that they shared. Every night they lined up in the same order at the cash register. The first four men paid nothing at all. The fifth, grumbling about the unfairness of the situation, paid $1. The sixth man, feeling very generous, paid $3. The next three men paid $7, $12 and $18, respectively. The last man was required to pay the remaining balance, $59. He realized that he was forced to pay for not only his own meal but the unpaid balance left by the first five men.

The 10 men were quite settled into their routine when the restaurant threw them into chaos by announcing that it was cutting its prices. Now dinner for the 10 men would only cost $80. This clearly would not affect the first four men. They still ate for free. The fifth and sixth men both claimed their piece of the $20 right away. The fifth decided to forgo his $1 contribution. The sixth pitched in $2. The seventh man deducted $2 from his usual payment and paid $5. The eighth man paid $9. The ninth man paid $12, leaving the last man with a bill of $52.

Outside of the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings, and angry outbursts began to erupt. The sixth man yelled, "I only got $1 out of the $20, and he got $7," pointing at the last man. The fifth man joined in. "Yeah! I only got $1 too. It is unfair that he gotseven times more than me." The seventh man cried, "Why should he get $7 back when I only got$2?" The nine men formed an outraged mob, surrounding the 10th man. The first four men followed the lead of the others: "We didn't get any of the $20. Where is our share?" The nine angry men carried the 10th man up to the top of a hill and lynched him.

The next night, the nine remaining men met at the restaurant for dinner. But when the bill came, there was no one to pay it.

 

[flint4xx]

I'll try and make this simple...

Tax Brackets—2003 Taxable Income
Joint return /Single taxpayer /Rate
$0–$14,000 /$0–$7,000 /10.0%
14,000–56,800 /7,000–28,400 /15.0
56,800–114,650 /28,400–68,800 /25.0
114,650 –174,700 /68,800–143,500 /28.0
174,700–311,950 /143,500–311,950 /33.0
311,950 and up /311,950 and up /35.0

For whatever reason you make a great deal of money and you pay more than three times the tax rate that somebody who works for low wage.

Hypothetical: The low wage worker makes $7000 and gets a 1% tax break equalling $70/yr.

The high income worker makes 311,950 and gets 1% equalling $3119.50/yr.

Both of these people will spend that money on something. Both will reintroduce that money into the economy, whether it be on beer, or stocks or whatever you minds would like to imagine. They will pay sales tax, cause employment, and move the economy.

Let's say the high income worker, already taxed three time as much, gets 2% tax relief equalling $6239/yr. That is alot of beer, or stock, sales taxes, increase in jobs and production, and healthier for the economy.

So the low income worker pay his 9% and the high income worker now only pays 33%

If you want to be fair, then should the low income pay 33% or should the high income pay 9%?

I don't see how this is fare no matter how you justify it. If someone goes out and succeeds, whether it be form their own hard work, or with help from others, they still have a huge burden to pay, and are penalized because they have done well.

If you are stupid you think the rich don't pay their fare share of taxes.

Just last week a democratic candidate for PRESIDENT was on national TV, and was completely ignorant or this fact. He turned into a bumbling moron when he was called to the carpet by an NBC reporter. If you don't know who I'm talking about then you are obviously not as well informed as you think you are, an maybe you shouldn't be commenting on the state of the economy and pointing blame.

You can be either part of the solution or part of the problem.

 

[bart]

I say make it a flat fee. Lets say the govt costs $10,000 per year for each citizen that lives here. You either pay the $10,000 or get invited to leave. You cannot have children until you can pay their share too. This way we wouldn't have any more children living in poverty.

Sounds rather draconian. However, it would require those that want to live as free people to shoulder the responsibility of doing so. It would also make everyone a hell of a lot more interested when the Govt decides to spend an extra $400 billion on something because you could divide that by 280 million and know that you were going to have to write a check for $1,428.57 for your share of it.

I think if things worked this way, people would be alot more responsible in how they vote, and it would eliminate alot of apathy over govt spending.

This way, rather than the rich guy getting lynched, the irresponsible politicians would be at the end of the rope.

 

[Checks]

HERE IS WHAT EVERYONE IS MISSING:

I paid about 4,000 in federal taxes last year.

My brother, semi-employed, with 3 children and a stay at home wife had 400 dollars in federal taxes taken out of his paychecks.
He not only got back his 400 dollars but also got an additional 4,000 dollars for a refund of 4,400. All of my tax money went to him. He is only semi-employed because he is LAZY and that is a FACT.

Did I also mention they get food stamps, rent vouchers, free medical care($5 co-pay), ect, ect.

Who is the dummy now?