Obama promises more than 600,000 stim...

Obama promises more than 600,000 stimulus jobs

There are 109543 comments on the Newsday story from Jun 8, 2009, titled Obama promises more than 600,000 stimulus jobs. In it, Newsday reports that:

President Barack Obama promised Monday to deliver more than 600,000 jobs through his $787 billion stimulus plan this summer, with federal agencies pumping billions into public works projects, schools and summer youth programs.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Newsday.

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#115013 May 14, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm fine with that, PROVIDED YOU AGREE THAT INCOME ONLY GETS TAXED ONCE - NO DOUBLE-DIPPING!
If you think it's fair (let's put aside whether it's SMART or not for the moment) to tax success twice - once when it's earned by people working together (as a corporation) and then AGAIN when that same after-tax corporate income is distributed to the people whose shared work, industry, enterprise, and talent produced it, please explain why you think that's fair (and bonus points if you can explain why it's SMART for the Nation to piss away even more of that scarce National seed corn on Government consumption).
I see, so you think if I work for XYZ Corp, and they pay taxes on what they make then I should owe no taxes on what they pay me, right?
Teddy R

Abu Dhabi, UAE

#115014 May 14, 2012
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
Inheritence, gifts, lotteries are all income and should be treated as such.
In the same sense that when we divest, give a gift or fail to win the lottery it is an outgo or even an expense to our net value.
First, you can not prove that the totality of an inheritence has ever been taxed. Capital gains are an excellent example.
Second, the purpose is to prevent and aristocracy from developing. Jeffersonian in its implementation.
You are much more politically aligned with the right than I am with left, but if your comparisons entertain you, by all means continue.
"Right" and "Left" are mere labels, much beloved of political hacks unable to muster arguments based upon facts and reason.

The Jeffersonian objection you refer to was against European primogeniture laws of inheritance of POLITICAL power, hereditary seats in Parliament, etc. Your twisted invocation of this to justify confiscation of private property is disingenuous.

You really need to get over your obsession with "inheritance" as "income." It's a moot point - as a practical matter, private wealth today never passes to individuals as what you erroneously call "income" anyway - it remains in Trusts, so as never to be subject to taxation. Give it up.
Teddy R

Abu Dhabi, UAE

#115015 May 14, 2012
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
So you agree that corporations should be taxed as individuals as I stated? That would put a lawyers out of business.
They already are.

They already have to file corporate tax returns and pay taxes - just as individuals do.

So what's your problem?
Teddy R

Abu Dhabi, UAE

#115016 May 14, 2012
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree that each entity that is taxed should pay tax on income only once. However, what you are referring to with inheritences is that the item, not the individual only get taxed once. That is a completely different context than what is normally inferred.
As an example, I make $1000.00. I pay taxes on it
OK stop. There you go. You paid taxes ON EVERY DOLLAR OF THE $1000. It's ALL been taxed.

HOW MUCH OF THE $1000 DO YOU HAVE LEFT AFTER the federal government took (and probably wasted on Solyndra) its bite of that $1000?

Let's say -$800. Because YOU didn't say.
Teddy R

Abu Dhabi, UAE

#115017 May 14, 2012
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree that each entity that is taxed should pay tax on income only once. However, what you are referring to with inheritences is that the item, not the individual only get taxed once. That is a completely different context than what is normally inferred.
As an example, I make $1000.00. I pay taxes on it
OK stop. There you go. You paid taxes ON EVERY DOLLAR OF THE $1000. It's ALL been taxed.

HOW MUCH OF THE $1000 DO YOU HAVE LEFT AFTER the federal government took (and probably wasted on Solyndra) its bite of that $1000?

Let's say -$800. Because YOU didn't say.

OK - continue.
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
... and invest $200 of what is left.


$200 of ALREADY TAXED money out of the $800 left AFTER TAXES. OK - continue -
okboston wrote:
<quoted text> Two years later I cash in the investment and get my original $200 ...
$200 of ALREADY TAXED money out of the $800 left AFTER TAXES. OK - continue -
okboston wrote:
<quoted text> ... back plus another $200. I pay capital gains on the additional $200 ...
OK, now pumpkin - remember that you paid taxes on that $200 because you're about to go all Progressive Alzheimers on this point in just a second ...
okboston wrote:
<quoted text> ... but not my original $200.
That same original $200 of ALREADY TAXED money out of the $800 left AFTER TAXES. OK - continue -
okboston wrote:
<quoted text> Now you stated that if my heirs were to inherit the $400 they should pay no taxes. First, they never paid one dime of tax on any of it.
Doesn't matter. It's already been taxed by the federal government.

That's all that matters.
okboston wrote:
<quoted text> Second, no one has paid a dime on the $200 of capital gains.
Poor, poor clueless OKB. Progressive Alzheimbers strikes again.

Re-read this post again from the top until you get it.
okboston wrote:
<quoted text> Suppose we owned a business together.
With your business acumen and tenuous grip on reality? Not likely ...
okboston wrote:
<quoted text> You earn money,...
Hold it, skip - I earn money? Or OUR BUSINESS earned money?

You have no idea which, do you?
okboston wrote:
<quoted text> ... pay taxes on it, and save some. Eventually you start your own business with the money you saved. 20 years later you sell it for a profit. You owe capital gains on what the value increased over what you paid.
Again, your worthless kids who never worked a day in their lives inherit it instead and you say they should owe no taxes.
Explain your inconsistencies.
OKB - that makes no sense at all.

Stop PWD. You have a hard enough time making sense when you're not drunk.
Teddy R

Abu Dhabi, UAE

#115018 May 14, 2012
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
I see, so you think if I work for XYZ Corp, and they pay taxes on what they make then I should owe no taxes on what they pay me, right?
No, fool.

If you are a SHAREHOLDER in XYZ Corp, if you are taxed on your share of what XYZ Corp made AFTER TAXES, that's double taxation.
Say the Truth

Eatontown, NJ

#115020 May 14, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
We've been over this before.
Flat tax, everybody over federal poverty level income pays, no deductions, how much did you make, take 17%, send it in. One-page tax return, no more tax lawyers, tax dodge artists, and legions of IRS agents - they all have to go get real jobs.
Works for me.

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#115021 May 14, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
"Right" and "Left" are mere labels, much beloved of political hacks unable to muster arguments based upon facts and reason.
The Jeffersonian objection you refer to was against European primogeniture laws of inheritance of POLITICAL power, hereditary seats in Parliament, etc. Your twisted invocation of this to justify confiscation of private property is disingenuous.
You really need to get over your obsession with "inheritance" as "income." It's a moot point - as a practical matter, private wealth today never passes to individuals as what you erroneously call "income" anyway - it remains in Trusts, so as never to be subject to taxation. Give it up.
No, it was about money and its relationship to power. My justification is not misused at all; however, your knowledge of Jefferson and money and power is misused.

"Taxes should be proportioned to what may be annually spared by the individual." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1784. FE 4:15, Papers 7:557

"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785. ME 19:18, Papers 8:682

"The collection of taxes... has been as yet only by duties on consumption. As these fall principally on the rich, it is a general desire to make them contribute the whole money we want, if possible. And we have a hope that they will furnish enough for the expenses of government and the interest of our whole public debt, foreign and domestic." --Thomas Jefferson to Comte de Moustier, 1790. ME 8:110

"The rich alone use imported articles, and on these alone the whole taxes of the General Government are levied.... Our revenues liberated by the discharge of the public debt, and its surplus applied to canals, roads, schools, etc., the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings." --Thomas Jefferson to Thaddeus Kosciusko, 1811. ME 13:41

And a complete article on the Founding Fathers and the Estate Tax from "The Economist"

http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2010...

It is evident that Jefferson had no problem making the wealthy, not the lower class pay taxes and a greater share of taxes.

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#115023 May 14, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
They already are.
They already have to file corporate tax returns and pay taxes - just as individuals do.
So what's your problem?
No, they are not. They are allowed exemptions and deducations which working tax payers are not allowed. When I say like inndividuals, I mean exactly like individuals. They get to right off their capital expenses, individuals should have the same right.

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#115024 May 14, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
No, fool.
If you are a SHAREHOLDER in XYZ Corp, if you are taxed on your share of what XYZ Corp made AFTER TAXES, that's double taxation.
But currently, XYZ gets to deduct their expenses to include wages so that does not happen. Further, if I hire someone to mow my lawn, and I pay them to do so, why shouldn't I be able to deduct that from my taxes?
Teddy R

Abu Dhabi, UAE

#115025 May 14, 2012
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it was about money and its relationship to power. My justification is not misused at all; however, your knowledge of Jefferson and money and power is misused.
"Taxes should be proportioned to what may be annually spared by the individual." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1784. FE 4:15, Papers 7:557
"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785. ME 19:18, Papers 8:682
"The collection of taxes... has been as yet only by duties on consumption. As these fall principally on the rich, it is a general desire to make them contribute the whole money we want, if possible. And we have a hope that they will furnish enough for the expenses of government and the interest of our whole public debt, foreign and domestic." --Thomas Jefferson to Comte de Moustier, 1790. ME 8:110
"The rich alone use imported articles, and on these alone the whole taxes of the General Government are levied.... Our revenues liberated by the discharge of the public debt, and its surplus applied to canals, roads, schools, etc., the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings." --Thomas Jefferson to Thaddeus Kosciusko, 1811. ME 13:41
And a complete article on the Founding Fathers and the Estate Tax from "The Economist"
http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2010...
It is evident that Jefferson had no problem making the wealthy, not the lower class pay taxes and a greater share of taxes.
Jefferson's views did not prevail.

And we may thank God for it.

If Jefferson had his way, we'd still all be hoeing potatoes and shitting in a bucket.

Brilliant man - but absolutely clueless about money and finance.
Teddy R

Abu Dhabi, UAE

#115026 May 14, 2012
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
No, they are not. They are allowed exemptions and deducations which working tax payers are not allowed. When I say like inndividuals, I mean exactly like individuals. They get to right off their capital expenses, individuals should have the same right.
Self-employed individuals do, fool.

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#115027 May 14, 2012
Say the Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
Works for me.
Fairtax.org

It is 23% inclusive or 30% exclusive only if you think there will be 100% compliance. Non-compliance (on stolen goods as an example) and the rate has to go up. Non-compliance from small business doing back door business (on services such as plumbing, sewer, roofing, etc.. this it easy) causes the rate to go up. Changes in spending habits cause it to go up.

If you are going to do it, do away with all other taxes and make it apply to 100% of all income regardless of source. The rate will still be over 17%.

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#115028 May 14, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Jefferson's views did not prevail.
And we may thank God for it.
If Jefferson had his way, we'd still all be hoeing potatoes and shitting in a bucket.
Brilliant man - but absolutely clueless about money and finance.
Nice to see you admit your error.
Teddy R

Abu Dhabi, UAE

#115029 May 14, 2012
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
The rate will still be over 17%.
Not after we slash the over-bloated fed government back down to sustainable limits <18% of GDP.

That's still manadatory.
Teddy R

Abu Dhabi, UAE

#115030 May 14, 2012
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
But currently, XYZ gets to deduct their expenses to include wages so that does not happen. Further, if I hire someone to mow my lawn, and I pay them to do so, why shouldn't I be able to deduct that from my taxes?
You're totally clueless - well beyond my ability or interest to educate.

Done.
Politics as usual

Huntington Station, NY

#115031 May 14, 2012
there is a big difference between having taxes on consumption and our form of income taxes.

even the rich have the choice of whether to buy a specific item, if they don't want to pay the tax/duty, then they don't have to buy the product.

on the other hand today people have no choice but to pay income taxes, and then the government takes the money and wastes it on kickbacks, scams like solyndra, bloated government and outright waste.

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#115032 May 14, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Not after we slash the over-bloated fed government back down to sustainable limits <18% of GDP.
That's still manadatory.
Think. An 18% tax on income will not equal 18% of GDP in spending. GDP is so much more than salaries. Just as an instance, the cost of financing and the cost of raw materials.

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#115033 May 14, 2012
Politics as usual wrote:
there is a big difference between having taxes on consumption and our form of income taxes.
even the rich have the choice of whether to buy a specific item, if they don't want to pay the tax/duty, then they don't have to buy the product.
on the other hand today people have no choice but to pay income taxes, and then the government takes the money and wastes it on kickbacks, scams like solyndra, bloated government and outright waste.
Yes, and each decision not to purchase a product puts another American out of work. Oh well, we can always go to a part time, non-paid volunteer military.
Teddy R

Abu Dhabi, UAE

#115034 May 14, 2012
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
Think. An 18% tax on income will not equal 18% of GDP in spending. GDP is so much more than salaries. Just as an instance, the cost of financing and the cost of raw materials.
Think. The federal Income Tax we're talking about here currently accounts for just under HALF of - only 56.8% of total federal revenues even if Corporate Tax is included.

Look, OKB - you've finally convinced me you're terminally clueless about money and public finance, just like your main man Mr. Jefferson.

The Magic Money Tree works for you - just as any religion works for those who are unequipped to deal with the realities of life, I can see that.

How about you just cozy up with your Progressive MMT theological cuddle blanket and we'll just leave the discussion of taxes and public finance right here - I've tired of chasing your non-linear mind around on the subject.

Trollface?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

York Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News New opener set for renovated Codorus State Park... (Jun '10) 14 hr unknown 68
Watch Out! Robert R Howard out of jail and scam... Wed concerned citizen 4
Review: Tony Sangiamo Law Office (Jul '12) May 27 Jessica 2
News Cate Blanchett denies lesbian past May 22 Sublime1 27
News David Letterman gets handcuffed to George Clooney May 22 Kid_Tomorrow 2
News Menendez Reintroduces Bill Banning Double-Decke... (Aug '13) May 21 Swedenforever 12
News Watch: 'Steve Jobs' new trailer released May 20 andet1987 2
More from around the web

York People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]