Other than raising taxes on corporations, due to the fact that they're making "too much money," what specific democrat policy will actually cause employers to hire more people and at higher salaries - still haven't heard that. (I know you're saying they're not related, but I have to differ). Like I said, I've been trying to understand the democrat side for years, but it never makes logical business sense to me and many others. That's not meant to put anyone down, just waiting to learn specifics on how they will create jobs. Paul Tsongas (D- MA) once said that "democrats love employment, they just hate employers." You can't have it both ways.
corporations don't pay corporate taxes, their costumers do ... not to make too obvious a point .. It's so very telling when someone uses "record profits" as an indictment against a company.... "PROFITS!?!?!? HOW DARE YOU!" enjoy the ride, remain seated and keep your hands inside the car as we gleefully enter a brave new world of already discredited socialist experimentation ... Hillary/Obama in 2008, with a stacked House and Senate?? This is literally a nightmare situation....
the4xczar haha funny that you brought this thread to fruition, i was going to say the eact same thing when i realized three of the threads in the first list in the Politics and Religion forum were all TAX THE RICH!!! The funny thing is that democrats/people with inadequate minds are assinine enough to actually believe that this may come back to them, bottom line is government will piss it away, and not only that, but all of the higher tax payers will simply move offshore and refuse to be alienated anymore. I dont understand how anyone who is educated could believe that higher taxes is the answer for anyone, for every dollar that hits the goevernment pockets they look at is as 2 they can spend. You know what is real funny, the entire education system is LOADED with liberals (that is how they get paid), however take ANY economics course and try to show me a prof who is a LIBERAL. Reason being?? It is an insanely easy conclusion, "PEOPLE DERIVE THE MOST SATISFACTION FROM THEIR EARNINGS BY SPENDING IT THE WAY THEY WANT," that on top of the FACT that inside of government/nonprofit institutions, you have an observer of an observer of an observer, and then finally they decide to spend the penny on the dollar left for something useful, like foot baths at universites, since that would be RIGHT, given the shaft muslims are getting right now. Government is not even in the vicinity of being efficient, anyone in here who can tell me government is efficient is either half retarded or half pinko.
Exactly, so if i run a corporation albeit i get bit of a lower tax rate ON THE CORPORATION, however i pay corporate taxes (at the lower rate) and then i pay income taxes at the highest rate as the primary owner collecting income from the corp. So we get the priviledge of double taxation, FANTASTIC!!!!
Oh and you wanna see another intelligent comment on this here......... TYPICAL LEFTY LUNACY. http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1520373#post1520373 Exaclty which side are you trying to prove this is unfair to?? person D) is coughing up 6045 dollars per year which he will never see again, you really think that person D is gonna go for Social security??? The real person making out like a bandit is person A who will live on social security his entire time past 65 (assuming it works like cpp) and will also take advantage of elderly health care, something which person D was smart/motivated enough to plan ahead for. are you suggesting that person D should also have to pay 6.2% per year or roughly 600,000 dollars per year so that he can have old age security benefits, and collect his 750$ per month past age 65, hahaha that is absolutely insane. This would mean if he lived for an extra 10 years past 65and actually qualified, hed get 1 YEAR OF HIS CONTRIBUTION BACK. So since you are paying for 10 years for every 1 you take out this would mean he is paying for roughly (lets just say he does 20 years of earnings like this) 200 years of social security. So that he can maybe get back 10. 20 dollars for 1 seems real fair doesnt it? When you actually become profitable lets see if you like coughing up 2000% over the amount you will ever be eligible for, in terms old age benefits. (i am referring to canadian pension plan in this example but assuming it will be very similar to how the U.S. one works, where everyone gets the same amount per month back should they choose/be eligible to take advantage of it) and all of this is beside the fact that person D will easily pay 200 times more in taxes over his lifetime than person A who will also more than likely figure out other ways to live off the system.