Derby Trail Forums

Go Back   Derby Trail Forums > The Steve Dellinger Discourse Den
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-14-2008, 06:03 PM
Danzig Danzig is offline
Dee Tee Stables
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: The Natural State
Posts: 29,940
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER
I'm not attacking what you said. I'm just saying it's Republican. I can't change your views. I'm just saying you're a Republican. I think your views are in line with Log Cabin Republicans.
i don't know much about 'blue dog' dems, but i know they're supposed to be fiscally conservative. does that mean they're closet republicans?

i just want to know how, if you make it harder for businesses to meet what they've set as their bottom line, it's a good thing? i work for a business, i help do the budgets. i know what the margins are, and i know what the profits are. i also know that the owner has his idea of what he should make. if the cost of doing business rises, i also know it's not him who will be cut back. now, it's all well and good to say that corporations make a lot of money, and need to pay their fair share. but i think it's ignoring reality to think that the ceo, the cfo, or the vp's, stockholders or owners are the ones who are going to take the hit when the bottom line looks like it will be lowered. prices will go up for their goods and services, or the amount of employees will be lowered. but stockholders will get their share, and the fat cats will still get fed. so, how does any of that help the middle class?

my concern when i ask these questions is not showing concern for the rich. i'm concerned for myself, and my co-workers and others just like them.
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all.
Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-14-2008, 06:26 PM
SCUDSBROTHER's Avatar
SCUDSBROTHER SCUDSBROTHER is offline
Flemington
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: L.A.
Posts: 11,326
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Danzig
i don't know much about 'blue dog' dems, but i know they're supposed to be fiscally conservative. does that mean they're closet republicans?

i just want to know how, if you make it harder for businesses to meet what they've set as their bottom line, it's a good thing? i work for a business, i help do the budgets. i know what the margins are, and i know what the profits are. i also know that the owner has his idea of what he should make. if the cost of doing business rises, i also know it's not him who will be cut back. now, it's all well and good to say that corporations make a lot of money, and need to pay their fair share. but i think it's ignoring reality to think that the ceo, the cfo, or the vp's, stockholders or owners are the ones who are going to take the hit when the bottom line looks like it will be lowered. prices will go up for their goods and services, or the amount of employees will be lowered. but stockholders will get their share, and the fat cats will still get fed. so, how does any of that help the middle class?

my concern when i ask these questions is not showing concern for the rich. i'm concerned for myself, and my co-workers and others just like them.
Blue Dog Democrats don't believe what you wrote about economics. That's about all they disagree with Republicans on. They favor a 3 class society, and Republicans favor just a 2 class society.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-14-2008, 07:33 PM
Danzig Danzig is offline
Dee Tee Stables
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: The Natural State
Posts: 29,940
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER
Blue Dog Democrats don't believe what you wrote about economics. That's about all they disagree with Republicans on. They favor a 3 class society, and Republicans favor just a 2 class society.

why would anyone favor a three class society? that would mean we still had poor people.
about all i've read about blue dogs is that they favor 'paygo'. i'll have to do some further research on them.
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all.
Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-14-2008, 07:37 PM
Danzig Danzig is offline
Dee Tee Stables
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: The Natural State
Posts: 29,940
Default

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-...ate-taxes.html

interesting stuff...

It's bipartisan. Among people who have called either for a reduction in or elimination of corporate taxes are John McCain, Charlie Rangel, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Milton Friedman, Lester Thurow.


Some 70 percent of the corporate tax burden is borne by workers in the form of lower wages and fewer high-paying jobs

An EU study of 50,000 companies found that a 1 percent increase in marginal corporate income tax rates leads to a 0.92 percent decrease in real wages.



It's a hidden tax: Even workers get hit by it, but they don't know it because they don't directly pay the tax.

For every dollar the government collects in revenue, the corporate tax may actually cost the government $1 in revenue through slower economic growth
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all.
Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-14-2008, 07:58 PM
Cannon Shell's Avatar
Cannon Shell Cannon Shell is offline
Sha Tin
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 20,855
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Danzig
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-...ate-taxes.html

interesting stuff...

It's bipartisan. Among people who have called either for a reduction in or elimination of corporate taxes are John McCain, Charlie Rangel, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Milton Friedman, Lester Thurow.


Some 70 percent of the corporate tax burden is borne by workers in the form of lower wages and fewer high-paying jobs

An EU study of 50,000 companies found that a 1 percent increase in marginal corporate income tax rates leads to a 0.92 percent decrease in real wages.



It's a hidden tax: Even workers get hit by it, but they don't know it because they don't directly pay the tax.

For every dollar the government collects in revenue, the corporate tax may actually cost the government $1 in revenue through slower economic growth
But some (Dala) will argue that these greedy corporations deserve to pay more because they havent passed enough down to the workers. That type of logic baffles me. Like it or not most companies dont exist to provide for workers, they are created and run to make money for the owners and or shareholders. The residual effect of creating jobs is just that. Higher taxes never helps an economy.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-14-2008, 08:03 PM
Danzig Danzig is offline
Dee Tee Stables
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: The Natural State
Posts: 29,940
Default

i just want to know what i've got 'wrong' on all this. apparently it's because i own guns and (gasp) hunt. oh, i fish too. thought i'd throw that little tidbit of evil in there as well.

and in one of the above, it said japan (currently the highest corporate taxes in the world) may lower their rate, which would make the u.s. #1 in taxes in that respect.
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all.
Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-14-2008, 08:08 PM
Cannon Shell's Avatar
Cannon Shell Cannon Shell is offline
Sha Tin
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 20,855
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Danzig
i just want to know what i've got 'wrong' on all this. apparently it's because i own guns and (gasp) hunt. oh, i fish too. thought i'd throw that little tidbit of evil in there as well.

and in one of the above, it said japan (currently the highest corporate taxes in the world) may lower their rate, which would make the u.s. #1 in taxes in that respect.
Yeah and people complain when companies send jobs and divisions overseas...

I suppose my biggest issue is that saying something to get elected and actually believing what you are saying are two different things. This tax plan that Obamas has floated has interestingly gone unchallenged by just about everyone save the "right wing publications" like the the Wall Street Journal. Not that McCains is very good either.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-14-2008, 08:21 PM
Rileyoriley's Avatar
Rileyoriley Rileyoriley is offline
Arlington Park
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: The Snowy Woods
Posts: 4,484
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Danzig
i just want to know what i've got 'wrong' on all this. apparently it's because i own guns and (gasp) hunt. oh, i fish too. thought i'd throw that little tidbit of evil in there as well.

and in one of the above, it said japan (currently the highest corporate taxes in the world) may lower their rate, which would make the u.s. #1 in taxes in that respect.


I've notified PETA on behalf of the deer and fish. They should be picketing you shortly you Bambi killer.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-14-2008, 08:54 PM
dalakhani's Avatar
dalakhani dalakhani is offline
Del Mar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Washington dc
Posts: 5,277
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell
But some (Dala) will argue that these greedy corporations deserve to pay more because they havent passed enough down to the workers. That type of logic baffles me. Like it or not most companies dont exist to provide for workers, they are created and run to make money for the owners and or shareholders. The residual effect of creating jobs is just that. Higher taxes never helps an economy.
dont even try it! I am out...O-U-T of political discussions.

Sports..sports..sports.

Scuds, before i go, I will leave you with a little ammo. economy did fine under clinton with tax hikes
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 10-14-2008, 08:59 PM
Danzig Danzig is offline
Dee Tee Stables
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: The Natural State
Posts: 29,940
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dalakhani
dont even try it! I am out...O-U-T of political discussions. Sports..sports..sports.

Scuds, before i go, I will leave you with a little ammo. economy did fine under clinton with tax hikes
nothing like making a liar of yourself.

from the cato institute, in which it states that reagan lowered the corporate tax rate from 46 to 34 %. it was 35% under clinton.


http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb_0707_48.pdf
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all.
Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 10-14-2008, 10:25 PM
Coach Pants
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dalakhani
dont even try it! I am out...O-U-T of political discussions.

Sports..sports..sports.

Scuds, before i go, I will leave you with a little ammo. economy did fine under clinton with tax hikes
Reply With Quote
Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.