Name 1 thing government could do to help your business - Page 2
Close
Login to Your Account
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 116
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Brenham, Texas
    Posts
    1,132
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1092
    Likes (Received)
    459

    Default

    Here's the definitive answer:

    "Repeal all laws except the ten commandments, the constitution, and the bill of rights".

    Ron Paul, move over!

    V

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    West Coast, USA
    Posts
    7,435
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    455
    Likes (Received)
    4907

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vernon Tuck View Post
    Here's the definitive answer:

    "Repeal all laws except the ten commandments, the constitution, and the bill of rights".

    Ron Paul, move over!

    V
    Of course, there might be just a bit of confusion on the roads, as folks make up their own ideas about which side to drive on, how fast to go, when to stop, and when to yield.

  3. Likes jdj liked this post
  4. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Northern Illinois
    Posts
    2,913
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1615
    Likes (Received)
    1737

    Default

    Buy a 12,000 pound truck, problem solved.

    There are very few useful things our highway patrol does these days other than produce revenue through the issuance of speeding tickets, although, I did see the Oklahoma Highway Patrol stop to remove a loose tire retread from the traffic lanes about fifteen or twenty years ago.

    D.

  5. Likes bigbob4040 liked this post
  6. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Brisbane Australia
    Posts
    1,058
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    28
    Likes (Received)
    94

    Default

    Seeing as in most countries the majority of people are employed by SME's, why don't they stop sucking the cock of big business and use all that money and energy to educate and strengthen the small business sector.

  7. Likes lazlo, marrt, jdj liked this post
  8. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    albany, new york
    Posts
    26
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    33
    Likes (Received)
    1

    Default

    stay out of our way

  9. #26
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Washington
    Posts
    7,857
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    5773
    Likes (Received)
    10153

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by powerglider View Post
    eliminate the Federal Reserve monopoly on printing money and creating it out of nothing, thus diluting the value of each dollar in my pocket every day.

    It's the worst theft that I can think of.
    There should be riots in the streets over that shit. World wide, not just America. It's mind boggling that no one cares or can see what a scam it is? What the fuck?

    Six media companies control 90% of the content in america and the people that control those companies have strong ties to the bankers. It's not a coincidence this shit isn't really covered in the media. Plus many of the news commentators and the like are part of the system in one way or another. For example, Andrea Michelle of NBC is Alan Greenspan's wife.

  10. Likes kpotter, marrt, jdj liked this post
  11. #27
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Rochelle,IL,USA
    Posts
    2,338
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    75
    Likes (Received)
    86

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kpotter View Post
    I have been thinkin about this since all these corporations seem to think the government owes them somethin. What could the government do for me. I want them to tax the holy crap out of stuff imported from 3rd world countries. No ranting just one wish.
    For new members who haven't seen this before:

    U.S. TARIFF HISTORY 1821-2000

    YEARS……………..AVERAGE EFFECTIVE TARIFF (% tax on all imports)
    1821-1830………….46.6%
    1831-1840………….24.9%
    1841-1850………….24.0%
    1851-186……………20.8%
    1861-1870………….36.2%
    1871-1880………….31.3%
    1881-1890………….30.1%
    1891-1900………….23.7%

    1821-1900………….29.7%

    1901-1910………….25.0%
    1911-1920………….11.8%
    1921-1930………….13.8%
    1931-1940………….16.8%
    1941-1950………….9.0%

    1901-1950………….15.3%

    1951-1960………….5.9%
    1961-1970………….7.3%
    1971-1980………….4.0%
    1981-1990………….3.5%
    1991-2000………….2.5%


    The United States had and even larger tariff increase after WW I than during Smoot-Hawley and our economy did not go into a depression - we had the roaring 1920s':

    YEAR....................FREE AND DUTIABLE TARIFF RATE
    1918....................5.79
    1919....................6.20
    1920....................6.38

    1921....................11.44
    1922....................14.68
    1923....................15.18

    From 1920 to 1923 the tariff rate increased from 6.38% to 15.18% - that is an increase of 138% .

    The Smoot-Hawley increase from 13.5% in 1929 to 19.8% in 1933 is only a 46.6% increase.

    The American Tariff League Study of 1951:
    total custom receipts / total imports x 100%

    Chile.....................46.3%
    Pakistan................36.9%
    Haiti.....................35.2%
    U.S. TARIFF AVERAGE 1821-1900..............29.7%
    Egypt...................29.6%
    Ceylon..................25.7%
    United Kingdom......25.6%
    El Salvador............25.0%
    Burma...................24.5%
    Guatemala.............22.3%
    Mexico..................20.6%
    Iran......................19.9%
    1933 SMOOT-HAWLEY PEAK RATE........19.8%
    Iraq......................18.4%
    Thailand................18.2%
    Venezuela..............17.8%
    New Zealand...........17.5%
    India.....................17.3%
    Greece..................16.3%
    Costa Rica.............15.2%
    Columbia................13.8%
    1929 U.S. TARIFF LEVEL...............13.5%
    Ireland...................13.2%
    Panama..................13.2%
    Turkey....................12.3%
    France....................10.6%
    Indonesia.................10.3%
    Portugal...................9.8%
    Australia..................9.6%
    Peru........................8.5%
    Italy........................8.4%
    Switzerland...............8.1%
    Israel.......................7.6%
    Brazil........................7.5%
    Canada.....................7.5%
    Honduras..................6.5%
    Germany...................5.8%
    South Africa..............5.6%
    UNITED STATES........5.1%
    Netherlands...............4.6%
    Norway.....................4.2%
    Sweden....................3.9%
    Argentina..................3.2%
    Belgium-Lux...............2.9%
    Denmark...................1.7%
    Japan.......................1.6%

    As late as 2002, India representing 17% of the worlds' population, protected its economy with a 32% effective tariff rate, a rate the United States has not seen since 1887 (31.52%). By proportion, this was 62% higher than the Smoot-Hawley peak, yet India was far from experiencing an economic depression. For the decade of 1990 to 2000, India saw its annual percentage change in exports increase by 14%, placing serious doubt as to the claims of high protective tariffs causing economic harm.

    2010 Defense Spending by Country



    And per capita income:

    List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The U.S. per capita defense spending ($2,260) in relation to global per capita income:

    61 out of 183 nations have people who average less annual income than our people average in annual defense spending.

    Steve

  12. Likes John Welden, lazlo, kpotter, jdj liked this post
  13. #28
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Hotchkiss, CO USA
    Posts
    1,828
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    123
    Likes (Received)
    53

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kpotter View Post
    I have been thinkin about this since all these corporations seem to think the government owes them somethin. What could the government do for me. I want them to tax the holy crap out of stuff imported from 3rd world countries. No ranting just one wish.
    The #1 thing the government could do to help my
    business is START managing the country for the
    sucess & health of the majority. What a novel idea.....

  14. Likes John Welden, kpotter, jdj liked this post
  15. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Waukesha, WI
    Posts
    7,354
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    708
    Likes (Received)
    1824

    Default

    Stop taxing me for my mere existence, before I become non-existant.

  16. Likes marrt, jimfnd liked this post
  17. #30
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    4,303
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1259
    Likes (Received)
    1189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave K View Post
    Stop taxing me for my mere existence, before I become non-existant.
    Taxes are the lowest they've been in 60 years.


  18. Likes John Welden, kpotter, gmatov liked this post
  19. #31
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Utah
    Posts
    2,867
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    End NAFTA.

  20. #32
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    WAPELLO, IA USA
    Posts
    6,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    29
    Likes (Received)
    1832

    Default

    It always seems that whenever programs are imposed they get thrown down to the employers....payroll tax, collect sales tax, mail it in, now efile it, etc. but we don't get a cut for the work. Same way with unemployment, used to be I just rana report, cut a check, the state employee typed it all in. Now I have to efile and type myself. Statewide employment down but likely noone fired from the labor savings at the state gov. if I have to collect it gimme a cut....

  21. #33
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Rochelle,IL,USA
    Posts
    2,338
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    75
    Likes (Received)
    86

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David Ferguson View Post
    Lock the exchange rate for dealing with international transactions, by returning to the gold standard (ie currency backed by gold reserves).

    This would prevent the printing of money by the unsupervised Federal Reserve Bank.
    The total amount of gold that has ever been mined has been estimated at around 142,000 tons. Assuming a gold price of US$1,000 per ounce, or $32,500 per kilogram, the total value of all the gold ever mined would be around $4.5 trillion. This is less than the value of circulating money in the U.S. alone, where more than $7.6 trillion is in circulation or in deposit.

    Quantity is irrelevant except for gold has a market value. If you wish to artificially set gold equal to some dollar amount, be my guest. But you're not allowing the market to set it then. Thus you force the value of gold to skyrocket, effecting the commercial uses of gold. Not very free market.

    Once you establish gold or silver or whatever as your reserve, it now must stand against fiat currencies in the world market.

    Historically, gold backed currencies gain value against fiat currencies making them stronger and pushing the trend towards trade deficits. Free trade economists have noted this since at least the 1800's.

    The result is an international balance of payments between the gold and non-gold currencies that is usually settled by a drain of the gold reserves of the gold standard currency. If the drain continues it wreaks havoc on the gold currency by eliminating its basis for value. In England a run on their gold reserves drove the value of their currency down relative to gold and their economy went into a deflationary tailspin.

    After WW II the U.S. had accumulated the vast majority of the world's gold reserves (about $26 billion) leaving the rest of the world without enough gold to back their currencies. The solution was the Bretton Woods Agreement which established the gold exchange standard.


    "Some will no doubt be surprised that in 1961, practically alone in the world, I had the audacity to call attention to the dangers inherent in the international monetary system as it existed then. My fears at the time were based essentially on the growing similarities between the international monetary developments of the years 1958-1961 and those of the latter part of the 1926-1929 period. There was the same accumulation of Anglo-Saxon currencies in the monetary reserves of European countries, in particular France, and the same inflation in creditor countries. In both periods the monetary system was characterized by the widespread application of a specific, adventitious procedure that
    Anglo-Saxon countries termed the gold-exchange standard.

    What marks this system is that, de jure or de facto, in the countries it affects, the counterpart in the balance sheet of the bank of issue for the amount of money in circulation is not only gold or claims denominated in the national currency, as is the case under the gold standard. It also includes a large proportion of foreign currencies that are freely convertible into gold—that is to say, in the 1925-1930 period, dollars and sterling, and since 1945, dollars only....

    There is one innovation which has materially contributed to the difficulties that are besetting the world. That is the introduction by a great many European states, under the auspices of the Financial Committee of the League of Nations, of a monetary system called the gold-exchange standard.

    Under this system, central banks are authorized to include in their reserves not only gold and claims denominated in the national currency, but also foreign exchange. The latter, although entered as assets of the central bank which owns it, naturally remains deposited in the country of origin.

    The use of such a mechanism has the considerable drawback of damping the effects of international capital movements in the financial markets that they affect. For example, funds flowing out of the United States into a country that applies the gold-exchange standard increase by a corresponding amount the money supply in the receiving market, without reducing in any way the money supply in their market of origin. The bank of issue to which they accrue, and which enters them in its reserves, leaves them on deposit in the New York market. There they can, as previously, provide backing for the granting of credit.

    Thus the gold-exchange standard considerably reduces the sensitivity of spontaneous reactions that tend to limit or correct gold movements. For this reason, in the past the gold-exchange standard has been a source of serious monetary disturbances. It was probably one cause for the
    long duration of the substantial credit inflation that preceded the 1929 crisis in the United States. The first action of an international conference that was resolved seriously to deal with monetary problems should be to eliminate it.

    As a result of this large influx of sterling and dollars from over-seas to the countries that had recently recovered, the Continental banks of issue did not ask for payment in gold, as they would have been required to do, at least for the most part of those resources, under the gold standard. Instead, they left the pounds and dollars in deposit at their place of origin, where they were usually loaned to national borrowers....

    The unending feedback of the dollars and pounds received by the European countries to the overseas countries from which they had come reduced the international monetary system to a mere child's game in which one party had agreed to return the loser's stake after each game of marbles....

    To verify that the same situation exists in 1960, mutatis mutandis, one has only to read President Kennedy's message of 6 February 1961 on the stability of the dollar. He indicates with admirable objectivity that from 1 January 1951 to 31 December i960, the deficit of the balance of payments of the United States had attained a total of $18.1 billion. One could have expected that during this period the gold reserve would have declined by the same amount. Amounting to $22.8 billion on 31 December 1950, it was, against all expectations, $17.5 billion on 31 December 1960.

    The reason for this was simple. During this period the banks of issue of the creditor countries, while creating, as a counterpart to the dollars they acquired through the settlement of the American deficits, the national currency they remitted to the holders of claims on the United States, had reinvested about two-thirds of these same dollars in the American market. In doing so between 1951 and 1961 the banks of issue had increased by about $13 billion their foreign holdings in dollars. Thus, the United States did not have to settle that part of their balance-of-payments deficit with other countries. Everything took place on the monetary plane just as if the deficit had not existed. In this way, the gold-exchange standard brought about an immense revolution and produced the secret of a deficit without tears. It allowed the countries in possession of a currency benefiting from international prestige to give without taking, to lend without borrowing, and to acquire without paying.""

    Jacques Rueff
    The Monetary Sin of the West, 1972
    p. 15-23




    Starting in the 1950's through 1971, enough dollars (around $58 billion backed by a U.S. gold reserve of 8,139 tonnes being valued at $10 Billion, (at $35/oz.).) had been sent to Europe in the form of foreign investment (lured by higher interest rates) to create inflation in those nations. France, Germany and England began cashing in their dollars for gold and rapidly drained our remaining gold reserves until Nixon was forced to abandon the gold standard on August 15, 1971.

    If we returned to a fractional gold reserve (we were at a 25% reserve ratio until Nixon removed it ) China alone has enough U.S. dollars (over a trillion) to drive us off a gold standard.

    China could begin to exchange - dollar for dollar - its trillion dollar reserves in exchange for gold, thus destroying the basis in our economy for the creation of currency equal to 1/gold reserve ratio.

    If we had a 10% gold reserve ratio, china could destroy the basis for creating 10x$1 trillion or $10 trillion dollars - thus destroying the U.S. currency system.

    Same thing happened to England in 1931.

    Gold standard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    "As had happened after previous major wars, the UK was returned to the gold standard in 1925, by a somewhat reluctant Winston Churchill. Although a higher gold price and significant inflation had followed the wartime suspension, Churchill followed tradition by resuming conversion payments at the pre-war gold price. For five years prior to 1925 the gold price was managed downward to the pre-war level, causing deflation throughout those countries of the British Empire and Commonwealth using the Pound Sterling. But the rise in demand for gold for conversion payments that followed the similar European resumptions from 1925 to 1928 meant a further rise in demand for gold relative to goods and therefore the need for a lower price of goods because of the fixed rate of conversion from money to goods. Because of these price declines and predictable depressionary effects, the British government finally abandoned the standard September 20, 1931."

    After abandoning the gold standard the U.S. invented a new way to back the dollar and sustain international demand for it as we ran the printing presses to pay for the Vietnam war:

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul303.html

    "Realizing the world was embarking on something new and mind-boggling, elite money managers, with especially strong support from U.S. authorities, struck an agreement with OPEC to price oil in U.S. dollars exclusively for all worldwide transactions. This gave the dollar a special place among world currencies and in essence “backed” the dollar with oil. In return, the U.S. promised to protect the various oil-rich kingdoms in the Persian Gulf against threat of invasion or domestic coup. This arrangement helped ignite the radical Islamic movement among those who resented our influence in the region. The arrangement gave the dollar artificial strength, with tremendous financial benefits for the United States. It allowed us to export our monetary inflation by buying oil and other goods at a great discount as dollar influence flourished."

    Congressman Ron Paul
    Before the US House of Representatives, February 15, 2006


    But this created a new problem if oil producing nations stop accepting our dollars for oil sales. Iraq under Saddam Hussein in November 2000 had stopped accepting dollars for oil sales and this threatened to expand to other nations as the U.S. dollar was losing value. We solved the Iraq problem by invading and eliminating Saddam and forced Iraq back to accepting dollars for Iraq oil sales. But other nations like Iran have since abandoned the dollar for their oil sales and this could be a future problem.

    Steve

  22. #34
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    West Coast, USA
    Posts
    7,435
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    455
    Likes (Received)
    4907

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by powerglider View Post
    eliminate the Federal Reserve monopoly on printing money and creating it out of nothing, thus diluting the value of each dollar in my pocket every day. . .
    It seems a fair comment, but consider this (today's Robert Samuelson opinion piece):

    Fed bashing gone wild - The Washington Post

    Samuelson is known as a conservative economics commentator. He usually irritates the left. Yet, here he is thanking the Fed for saving our economy from depression; irritating both the far left and far right. The Fed is a bit like firefighters we blame for chopping a hole in our roof and drowning our possessions, while trying to keep a raging fire from spreading.

  23. Likes jdj liked this post
  24. #35
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    940
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    233
    Likes (Received)
    220

    Default

    Sorting out the healthcare situation would have a huge impact in the US. Not only is healthcare costly to small businesses but it is probably one of the biggest deterrents to new business... which has a huge trickle down effect on job creation, which we sorely need right now.

  25. Likes kpotter, smalltime, machinehead61, lazlo liked this post
  26. #36
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Minnesota U.S.A.
    Posts
    137
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    8

    Default

    Eliminate the corporate tax rate. The machines we have to buy for our business is similar to that of machine shops. I own a printing company. The cost of some of the new equipment can be 1/2 of our yearly gross revenue. If we were able to save money in the corporation for future machine purchases instead of having to borrow from a bank we could expand our business much faster but in the same conservative way we have been doing for over 35 years.

    Since we would have to pay double taxes now during a down year if we paid corporate taxes on profits (assuming we need to take a salary) we simply pay personal taxes and distribute the profits. It is a stupid tax system that makes you pony up annually when business decisions are much longer term. We are still in business after three market crashes in the last decade because we did not go heavily into debt. Why bust your balls to make a bigger business when the taxes and regulations are against you. Heck one more employee and we have a new raft of requirements and headaches.

  27. #37
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    2,233
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1252
    Likes (Received)
    1804

    Default

    Initiate real substantive tax reform, Not just for business but for all taxpayers.

    Included in this should be a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. Also included in this amendment would be the provision for ANY tax, fee, tariff or any other revenue stream to be adopted by 2/3 of both the house of representitives and the senate.

    Also included in the amendment would be a term limit for the house and the senate to be determined later, that should cover it....................I need a martini

  28. Likes marrt liked this post
  29. #38
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Rochelle,IL,USA
    Posts
    2,338
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    75
    Likes (Received)
    86

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cmailco View Post
    Sorting out the healthcare situation would have a huge impact in the US. Not only is healthcare costly to small businesses but it is probably one of the biggest deterrents to new business... which has a huge trickle down effect on job creation, which we sorely need right now.
    The Southern California Physicians Council (SOCAP) represents thousands of doctors. It was this group that led the fight against sky-high medical malpractice insurance premiums......

    The saga began in 1973, when the Hartford Insurance Group was negotiating a new contract with SOCAP. Hartford wanted a rate hike of 100 percent, and negotiations broke down. About this time Travelers entered the picture, apparently to increase its involvement in the medical-malpractice insurance market.

    Travelers won SOCAP away from Hartford by offering an increased premium of only 30 percent and by adding something called a “rate-stabilization fund”. Travelers' contract stated if premiums in any given year exceeded the cost of covering claims, the cost of administration, and a reasonable profit for Travelers, the excess money would go into a fund to be credited against future premiums. (The provision, however, did not make clear what would happen to the fund if Travelers terminated its contract with SOCAP) SOCAP signed up with Travelers and had a three-year period of relative peace.

    Then, in 1976, Travelers demanded a 486 percent rate increase, claiming high losses on malpractice policies past, present, and future. The doctors were dumbfounded........Premiums doubled and tripled and several neurosurgeons and orthopedic surgeons received bills for over $35,000 per year for their malpractice premiums. A number of doctors left the state; others even quit practice......

    The increase that Travelers demanded, based on alleged losses, made doctors very suspicious. The relationship between SOCAP and the insurance company deteriorated seriously. Travelers decided to end its venture into California medical malpractice insurance by canceling the SOCAP contract upon its expiration in 1978. When this happened (SOCAP president Edward) Zalta decided to look into Travelers' profit picture and into the rate-stabilization fund.......

    Zalta and his colleagues began digging into all available statistics on Travelers' performance during the five years of the SOCAP contract. After meticulous research and persistant questioning, it became clear that 1976, 1977, and 1978 were highly profitable years for Travelers Insurance Companies......

    He (Zalta) said, “They had collected over $131 million in premiums, and paid out less than 25 percent of that in losses.”

    In short, Travelers had taken our money, used it interest free, and intended to return only a discounted portion to us after inflation had eroded its value. We said, 'To hell with that.'”

    "The case not only never went to trial, it really never got off the ground. I did more negotiating than I did lawyering, and in the process I learned, it was pretty easy to conclude that insurance consumers of all kinds are prey to this sort of action and are in need of protection, Certainly if doctors could be overcharged, less-powerful consumers are even more vulnerable."

    William M. Shernoff
    Payment Refused; A Crusading Lawyer's Dramatic Cases Against Insurance Companies, 1986
    p. 182-187


    Steve

  30. #39
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Edison Washington USA
    Posts
    10,231
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    949
    Likes (Received)
    5259

    Default

    I am in Argentina right now, and when I travel like this, I have to really wonder if some of you guys have ever been out of the USA.

    By most every possible measure, the USA is in the top 5 of LEAST REGULATED countries in the world.

    For instance, we are number 122 on this chart-
    Regulation statistics - countries compared - Nation Master

    In most studies, usually only Singapore is less regulated than we are.

    And, as Lazlo pointed out, our taxes are at the lowest in 60 years.

    Now, theoretically, it is possible we could have less regulation and lower taxes. Nobody else on the planet has been able to do this, but maybe we could.

    Me I would like the US government to have an Industrial policy, like most other civilized countries do.

    Whoops- somebody seems to be getting the idea.
    Obama establishes an Office of Manufacturing Policy - JSOnline

    Another thing I would like to see the government do is provide FREE, (yup, you heard me, free) education, up to and including university, for all kids in america. Here in Argentina, it is a tiny country, about half the population of California, but since they have free education, the place is full of amazingly smart, educated people. Not to say the country is without problems, it has its share, but having an educated workforce gives them a big head start, one we could surely use.

  31. Likes machinehead61, Mark Rand liked this post
  32. #40
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Minnesota U.S.A.
    Posts
    137
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lazlo View Post
    Taxes are the lowest they've been in 60 years.

    The problem with that chart is the GDP is inflated.
    Tax rates may not be higher but the money you have left after the tax buys a lot less today because of the invisible inflation brought on by printing money and decimating the dollar. So basically the rates have gone up on everyone because they get less with the money they have and even less for the taxes they do pay.
    Have you checked your real estate tax bill? In Florida they have taxes of $10,000 a year on houses that sell now for $250,000, sure they were valued over a million a few years back but the taxes never went down.

    Since the government simply borrows and spends now (steals money from all of us) they don't even need to increase taxes. If they did increase taxes to actually pay for all the spending your GDP would fall off a cliff!

  33. Likes marrt liked this post

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •