General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSeriously, they need to give it up. Who do they think is buying this crap?!
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
99Forever
(14,524 posts)
2naSalit
(102,144 posts)not to be picky or anything but you do know that the song was written by Kris Kristofferson, right?
Response to 2naSalit (Reply #22)
Post removed
2naSalit
(102,144 posts)I was just curious. I didn't mean to start an argument which is why I made it a question. Maybe you meant it to be humorous and I just didn't get. It's hard to know how to as a question here.
And what does ESAD mean???
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... intimating a lack of knowledge on another person you have never met, isn't the best way to "ask them a question."
2naSalit
(102,144 posts)guess it didn't work out that way did it? Geeze. Sorry if you are so thin skinned that you can't entertain a question... the citation is incorrect, I wondered if you knew that.
12AngryBorneoWildmen
(536 posts)Dude. (your seismic defensiveness)
Rhiannon12866
(254,399 posts)
Chemisse
(31,326 posts)Rather an extreme reaction.
Rhiannon12866
(254,399 posts)And I got into the habit of looking up things I don't know... 
2naSalit
(102,144 posts)That that was just a bit over the top for a simple question... And thanks for the definition. I don't do texting and Twitter or FB or any of that so I'm not totally informed when acronyms of that sort arise. It took me a long time to figure out what NSFW meant!
Sorry I ruffled his wet fur so badly but I was just asking... imagine what the response might have been if I hadn't included the disclaimer and question mark... yikes.
On second thought, and edit, I think I'd rather not try to imagine that.
Rhiannon12866
(254,399 posts)I agree that it was a totally over-the-top reaction to what you posted and certainly not civil behavior here. It kinda shocked me, actually, but I'm guessing he figured nobody would know what it meant. Welcome to DU! The rest of us are glad you joined us!
DreamGypsy
(2,252 posts)From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Me and Bobby McGee" is a song written by Kris Kristofferson and Fred Foster, originally performed by Roger Miller. Others performed the song later, including Kristofferson himself[1], and Janis Joplin who topped the U.S. singles chart with the song in 1971 after her death, making the song the second posthumous number-one single in U.S. chart history after "
Sittin' On) The Dock of the Bay" by Otis Redding.
Andy823
(11,555 posts)There is a minority of totally brain dead tea baggers who might be still buying into this BS, but that's about it. Of course the republicans in congress have to keep saying this crap, I mean it's the right wing talking points that never change!
sendero
(28,552 posts)... for 30 years now and they are not about to give it up.
What they don't get is that it is not working so well any more.
Mr. Mojo Risen
(104 posts)How else to you sell the republican program? The good old standby's like abortion, minorities, and gays simply aren't working anymore. At least with trickle down they can rephrase and repackage the whole idea and hope no one notices.
GeorgeGist
(25,570 posts)How many v oted for RoMney?
geckosfeet
(9,644 posts)no longer believe in trickle down, if indeed we ever did. In fact it was always a cruel misnomer cynically thrown out there by these assholes. Crumbs they said, you will benefit from our crumbs. Or as saint r0nnie would have it, you will be anointed by the trickle of our urine.
No. We never believed it as valid economic theory. But now it is coming as a veiled threat. The message is clear - "raise taxes on the rich and we will hurt you".
It is all coming into focus. The ridiculous demands for cuts in social security, medicare/medicaid, stimulus spending, food stamps etc. etc. are all shots aimed directly at the people. Cuts that will amount to a drop in the bucket as far as deficit reduction. Cuts that will hurt people who need the help just because the republicans need some leverage to fight raising taxes on the rich.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)
Cresent City Kid
(1,621 posts)It is repeated over and over as an inevitable consequence, raise taxes on the rich and they'll have less to invest ergo they'll invest less. Crazy idea: What if they invested the same amount despite the 3% increase in the marginal rate and just simply have slightly less money? The "Job Creators" have had 10 years of Bush tax cuts plus 2 bonus years to do all this job creating.
I have my own mantra, money doesn't come from the rich, it goes to them.
teewrex
(96 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Eddie Francis
(1 post)It's typical Repub position and belief: repeat it often enough and the Stupids will buy it.
They are sleazy liars.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
sellitman
(11,744 posts)You just hear about this place?
grantcart
(53,061 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)The GOP is weakened but still holding onto the remnants of power. When they fall completely, it will be swift, just as it was for the USSR.
SamHarris2012
(42 posts)First of all, a lot of people making over 250K don't employ anyone. They work for people who employ people. Second of all, the math doesn't add up to creating jobs. A little over 3% of households make over 250K a year (to include single folks making over 125K a year). Again, a lot of those folks don't employ anyone. They work for people who employ people.
Lets say I am a small business owner hauling in 300K a year in AGI or profit. Let's say I get a tax break of 10%. So now I am hauling in 330K a year in AGI or profit.
What will I do with that extra 30K? Hire someone? Invest? Why the heck would I hire someone just to pay them 50K when I'm only making an extra 30K? I'm actually losing money on the deal. And why would I invest if there is no demand?
Point being this...the rich get richer because the return on tax breaks has diminished. The well has run dry or is extremely muddy. A tax cut now will only go into their pocket and not to creating jobs.
jmowreader
(53,111 posts)Under the current tax regime, $300,000 in profit would cause $105,000 in tax liability.
Cut taxes 10 percent (from 35 to 31.5 percent) and your taxes drop to $94,500. If you can't hire a $50,000 employee for $30,000 in tax savings you definitely can't hire one for $10,500.
Like Goebbels said, lie big and often and people will believe it.
Mariana
(15,622 posts)jmowreader
(53,111 posts)A company that generates $300,000 in taxable profit is probably making between $10 and $30 million in receipts, so it's probably not an LLC or S-corp but a C-corp...which pays a flat 35 percent on profits.
Mariana
(15,622 posts)I know very little about how businesses are taxed, and I was just curious. 
jmowreader
(53,111 posts)A business takes in monies from its customers. That's what it's there for.
A lot of expensive equipment can be "depreciated" - it loses its value over time. There are several depreciation schedules that you can use to figure out how much of that you can deduct from your taxable income. You do that. Eventually your equipment depreciates out and you can't deduct it anymore; to keep this deduction going you have to buy new equipment...which is one of the main reasons they time-limit the deduction.
Then you add up everything you paid to make the money you are going to send some of to the government. Deduct all of that from your taxable income. (Salaries are one of the things you can deduct.)
Whatever you have left is taxable, and there are two ways you can do it.
If you are running a limited liability company or a Subchapter S corporation (Google is your friend), the company does not pay taxes. Instead, the money the company makes is taxed on the owners' personal tax returns and reported on Schedule C. Since it's personal tax, the same brackets we wage serfs use apply.
If you are running a Subchapter C corporation, which is for large corporations but can be used for small ones, tax is paid at a flat 35 percent.
Mariana
(15,622 posts)
NashvilleLefty
(811 posts)As you said, a lot of equipment can be "depreciated" and loses it's value over time. This makes sense, if I have a car that is older it requires less insurance than a newer car (or at least, it should). simply because it requires more maintenance. Further, it ensures that I use newer equipment rather than older equipment which would probably be more dangerous. Again, this would lower my insurance rates as well as my tax deduction. And, seriously, as a Business Owner concerned about cost I will find my Insurance Costs much higher and of more importance than Taxes.
Bottom line, if you are paying the full 35% then you need to fire your accountant.
jmowreader
(53,111 posts)I think the biggest reason for cutting off depreciation deductions is the encouragement to buy new equipment that it creates, hence boosting the economy. If John's Trucking trades in 100 old tractors for new ones every year (we'll say they have 500 power units, and trade them in every five years), the truck manufacturer benefits, the dealer benefits, the bank benefits, the environment benefits, the drivers benefit and because new trucks get better mileage than old ones, plus have less wrong with them for the cops to write tickets over, John's Trucking benefits.
The only people for whom taxes are the most important thing are Republican pundits and teabaggers; taxes are certainly important in that any decent businessman will figure out some way to get out of paying any if it's even remotely possible to do it, but they're not the primary motivator.
SamHarris2012
(42 posts)Under the current tax regime, $300,000 in profit would cause $105,000 in tax liability.
Tax Rate: 100,000 to 335,000 [$22,250 + 39% Of the amount over 100,000]
$22,250 + $200,000(.39) = $100,250
My point was sound. 97% of Americans don't make that much. A lot of those folks who do make that much don't employ anyone. They work for people who employ people. Cutting taxes anymore is unsustainable. The well has run dry as it pertains to job creation.
jmowreader
(53,111 posts)Your way is for LLCs and S corps, whose taxes are paid at personal tax rates.
I think it would be kinda rare for an LLC to throw off $300,000 in taxable profits (because of tax loopholes like salaries, utilities and materials, most businesses make far more than they pay tax on) so with these guys I automatically think, subchapter C, 35 percent flat rate.
sendero
(28,552 posts)... and there isn't one reputable economist who would claim they do.
Businesses hire for ONE REASON AND ONE REASON ONLY, when they can leverage the cost of another employee into PROFITS.
The only way they can do that is if there is DEMAND for their product or service.
These facts are simple, indisputable and they fly in the face of the ridiculous assertions by the right wing that taxes have anything to do with job creation.
(Other than the other fact that taxes collected cannot be used to purchase goods (creating demand), hence keeping taxes for lower income/middle class where they are).
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)When you look at where executive pay is compared to the regular employee pay, the divide is massive and getting larger. What trickles down is insignificant when so much is moving upward.
We would not have many of the problems we have today if these corporations were not so overtaken by greed and would pay their workers a wage they can live on.
Beartracks
(14,540 posts)... he wouldn't actually make such moronic statements.
=============
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)that guy will be re-elected at least three times until he decides to retire. Most of the Republicans in the House will be re-elected, campaigning on trickle-down, in 2014, just like they were in 2012, 2010, 2008, etc.
socialindependocrat
(1,372 posts)based on the motivation to hoard money.
Trickle-down doesn't work because once the wealthy get their money
they want to keep it and invest it to make more money.
When a business spends more money for any reason, the business feels
it is within it's rights to raise prices., lower worker salaries and benefits
in order to recoup any potential loss of earnings.
xtraxritical
(3,576 posts)They are just not economically literate and equate economic (theory) to their households. Deficits are like credit card debt and therefor are very very bad. Even if you type your buns off explaining Keynesian theory it's just a waste of time. The average IQ in the USA is about 100 and for most GOP voters that is surly true, that is, average at best. People of intelligence are Democrats!
tblue37
(68,414 posts)metric is set up to be. In the same way that 32 degrees Farenheit is the freezing point of water--not "about," but exactly--the average IQ is set at 100.
yends21012
(228 posts)
Flatpicker
(894 posts)to kick trickle down economics to the curb.
Econ 101, Demand creates the need for Production which creates the need for More Jobs, which creates more demand.
To quote another piss poor Republican President, Anything else is "Voodoo Economics".
rickyhall
(5,509 posts)I like that better. Maybe the rich should ponder on the revolutions of 1789 & 1917.
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)
mfcorey1
(11,134 posts)RKP5637
(67,112 posts)
Initech
(108,528 posts)2naSalit
(102,144 posts)to drown the rest of we the "little" people in the trickled down shit...
liberal N proud
(61,190 posts)jmowreader
(53,111 posts)Trickle-down should be called GOP Wealth Redistribution. Because it is.
Our friends on the other side of the aisle love to refer to any tax, non-defense expenditure or social program as wealth redistribution and then, in the next breath, refer to a tax cut which is redistributive upwards as a job creating measure.
They love that term because it evokes Soviet totalitarianism. What would the pukes do when called on their shit?
KansDem
(28,498 posts)
Resonance_Chamber
(142 posts)proving America is a nation of not so bright people and racists.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts) tomtharp
(30 posts)I have read that higher tax rates encourage businesses to reinvest profit into their equipment/personnel/infrastructure instead of paying it as tax. I am not a tax expert but makes basic sense to me.
Rain Mcloud
(812 posts)will hurt the poorest,hardest.
Sure!
Cutting Social programs will enrich the richest among us the most too.
I am sure the Tea-Partiers are foaming at the mouth to have their benefits that they don't need reduced,so as to inflate their stocks and bonds.
Screw poor old lady Jankins down the street,she will just waste it on all those cats.
broadcaster75201
(387 posts)They are convincing JUST enough people to keep them in power.
This isn't about governing one iota. It's about power. And the sooner many on the Left realize that, the sooner conservatism will end.
Beartracks
(14,540 posts)... help them by giving money to the rich person in the mansion?
OK, thanks. Got it.
==================
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)Give money first to the people who need it the most. They spend it on products and services, and the rich get richer.
Why should the wealthy get to set the timeline?