lawnchaircrew

Lowering taxes for the middle class and raising them for the lower upper class making 250k or more (which is now magically 150k and dropping since obama's has been elected) hurts the middle class more than anything. What happens when you raise taxes on the people that create middle class jobs? LAYOFFS, PAYCUTS, LOSS OF INSURANCE and other bonuses. If people are being layed off as a consequence of tax hikes on small AND big business then they don't have money to spend on our economy...period. It's simple economics. Socialism doesn't work, the french and the russians already tried that remember? Obama's plan is a plan for total economic melt down (aka a depression). ALthought he's such a freakin' flip flop he probably won't do a damn thing he said during his year of "change mind" campieghning. cool.gif

tibbytib

Well then how do you explain WHY the economy is in meltdown right NOW? People have been loosing there homes for the past 4-5 years due to the economy we're in right now. The fact that inflation is rising and minimum wages are not, and that the middle class IS paying the most taxes of any economic group should be a clue to where we've been heading, and where we ARE heading if the middle class is not taken care of.

You argue that higher taxes will cause companies to produce layoffs, yet, so many companies are going or have already gone bankrupt and have closed their doors, with our middles class taxes being high already. Linens and Things and Circuit City instantly come to mind. Bennigans, at least here in Colorado, were all closed. Why? Because the middle class is overworked, under-payed, and taxed to heavily to be encouraged to go spend money when they have trouble filling their gas tanks, paying their utilities, and trying to make their mortgage payments.

We are the ones who will spend our hard earned money in these businesses, and if there is no one spending, then you can see why these companies begin to go under. Cutting taxes for them will not help in the end, its the consumers that our economy has to take care of. Cutting taxes for large businesses IS a very good idea, but not at this stage in our economy. A strong economy with a strong middle class foundation would prosper with large enterprises getting incentives to create jobs and R&D, but we are far from that right now.

We are the majority of the consumers, the middle class, and we are ultimately the ones who drive our economy and markets. When we stop spending money, thats when we see hard times like this. We are essentially the Achilles heel of the fortune 500 companies.

In essence, minimum wages need to be raised, taxes for the middle class need to be cut, and taxes for the rich and wealthy need to be raised. I do agree that it needs to be done carefully to allow smaller businesses allowences to help keep them afloat until the middle class feels comfortable again and begins to spend and create economic growth from the ground up.

You cannot fix the foundation of a building by fixing the top floor, unless you completely remove the floors from the top one by one. Thats already happening with these large companies falling off the top or trying to get bailouts that WE, the middle class, will be paying for. But the foundation will still be weak and not support growth until attention is brought to the structural integrity of the foundation. Funny how a simple carpenter, constructional analogy can be applicable to so many aspects of life, and Wallstreet in no exception.

Sparticus

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tibbytib @ Nov 23 2008, 01:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>People have been loosing there homes for the past 4-5 years due to the economy we're in right now.</div>
people have been losing their homes because they were given loans that they had no reason to have been offered in the first place. thats a democrat thing right therre.

ultimately, the gov should NOT "bail out" these car companies. this is why this topic got started in the first place. why on earth should these 3 auto manufactueres, who have been struggling for years and years, be given money to stay afloat for 6 more months, have that money wasted on a terrible product line, only for them to go out of business in the end anyways?

the federal government shouldn't do shit. its survival of the fittest. you don't see honda, toyota, or HYUNDAI asking to be bailed out.

tibbytib

Spart, dude, I totally agree with you, on all fronts. Even the mortgage deal, which, as I agree with you that folks took out money that they really had no business doing, a lot of it comes from greedy, wealthy realestate financial institutes that saw a HUGE way to jack up the prices on realestate, give people HUGE loans that sound to good to be true, and on paper was like signing their soul to the devil. My folks home was bought in 1991 in silt Colorado for 52000. A friend back home said the same house sold for close to 300,000. Now, thats inflation of close to 500%!!!! Thats another huge can of worms...

Yep, totally with you on the automotive companies. The bad thing is though, that if they go under, not only do automotive factory workers loose their jobs, but the people who mine the raw materials loose their jobs. The people that make the individual parts loose their jobs. The shipping and handling personal loose their jobs. Advertisers, including newspapers, radio, TV, all lose revenue. Its a spiderweb of economic catastrophe that the government MUST deal with when making a decision. I support the poor folks whose jobs are on the line because of this. I have absolutely no respect for the executives of these companies that let it come to this. Its in-excusable and as a taxpayer paying for these bailouts, I think some legal and criminal action should be sought on the most guilty of individuals in all these bailout plans. Will that happen, probably not. Such is life I suppose. Something must be done. Its truly a double edged sword this one.

Rixshark

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (HyundaiKitCoupe @ Nov 21 2008, 11:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Ford said they are required to fly in luxury Jets for security reasons.</div>

This just shows you how out of touch these executives really are. They obviously have to concept of the security that is in place in airports and required for traveling. I'm sure they have the same amount of security as everyone else has when they fly. The only difference is that they don't have to sit around waiting or deal with lines.

If the government is going to bail these guys out....then they need to impose a clause that will cap the compensation packages, and they have to surrender their private jets. The same issue is being considered by the Canadian government as well. If you want help, the governments will control how the money is spent, and its not going to be for multi million dollar bonuses. Because any company that needs government assistance shouldn't be forking out bonuses to people when they're LOSING money. "Here's 2 million for doing absolutely nothing while we lost billions in the last quarter."

The other thing that needs to happen, and I'm sure I'll be crucified for saying this, but these unions need to give up some wages. There is a guy working at a plant here in Canada. He gets paid $70K/ year to drive cars off the line and out onto the lot. Theres something not right with this. If I had known that much money can be made driving a car 1 km.....I wouldn't be doing what I'm doing now......AND the tib would be boosted... lmao.gif

supercow

tibby tib, I totally get what your saying about the spiderweb thing. AK Steel, a huge local employer is going on "idle" at the end of this month until at least mid. January. 90% (or more) of their product goes to detroit for cars. It really sucks for the locals who are employed there and I've already had some of it effect my business with lost jobs since people decided to put off purchases/upgrades till this gets settled. Customers who sell flooring and other building supplies are almost at a stand still. My customers in the low income housing market are booming right now though. 100% occupancy, waiting lists a mile long, etc.

majik

Can anybody here please explain how this is fair? Because it really does not make sense to me:

A person grows up with a single mother who works two jobs to put food on the table. That child works hard and earns scholarships to go off to college and become successful. That individual overcomes obstacles and make something of themself - let's say they become a C-Level executive: CFO, CEO, CIO, or something similar. That person makes $250,000 per year, but works 10 hour days 6-days a week. Travels 40% of the year and works hard to make the company they run be profitable, create more jobs, and improve the American economy.

Another person works an 9-5 job sitting in a cubicle, living on the forums and playing games, waiting for 5:00 to come so he can go to the local bar for happy hour. That person makes $35,000 per year.

Why should the first person, who has worked themselves up to that level of involvement, who is a successful self-made individual, give 40% of their income to the government, while the cubicle worker who contributes little to the economy only provides 25% of his paycheck? Shouldn't we strive to become better and more successful? Why do they receive consequences for their success?

I'm not talking about those who get a $5,000,000 bonus on top of their $2,000,000 salary.

tibbytib

Because the guy working for 35k a year only brings home 26250. Oh, and why dont we take out another 6,000 (very conservative amount) for benefits and health care. Thats take home of 20,000 roughly. That comes out to, hmmm.....1660 a month. Try buying food, paying utilities, paying rent, fuel, utilities. etc, etc.....

Now lets take Joe Shmoe making 250k a year. Yep, he has a huge burden on him because he did better himeself. But his take home will be AT LEAST 150k, if not closer to 200k, simply because this guy does have an education, knows how to work his/hers taxes in a way to benefit himself/herself. SO, in the worst case scenario, what does he bring home a month.......12,500!!!!! Hell bring home in 3 months what I make in an entire year! BEFORE taxes!

So to answer your question Majik, IMO, yes, he/she does and should carry an extra burden, because no matter how you look at it, they will be living an exponentially greater life style then the rest of us working under 50k a year. yes, they carry an extra tax burden, but, they also have an enormously more amount of financial freedom then the guy/gal working and according to you, doesnt give a shit about there job. Honestly, I take that as a real insult. I went to school to better myself and I do give a shit about my job. I have a masters degree for god sake. I dont make 50k a year. But, I love what I do.

majik

$6,000 for benefits is VERY conservative?! WOW! I pay $2,600 annually for both my wife and I. That's less than half of your VERY CONSERVATIVE amount. Thus, my calculations come to $2,000/month (wow, he just magically received a 18% increase in pay!).

Also, for you to take what I said as an insult means you need to reread what I wrote. It wasn't meant as an insult, it was a comparison of the level of stress, dedication, and life altercation that one has to make to their job. A C-level has a little more involvement and stress than someone like myself who works in a cubicle. I'm in the same boat as you, I don't make $50,000 either, and I went to school, dual major, extended certifications, but I work with C-level executives and I know the hours they put in and the dedication they have to my companies. They deserve the pay they receive, and they sacrifice their lives and their families to make it work.

Yes, they bring in more money, but they pay for things the same way we do, and they buy their toys just like we do.

The rich do make more money, and with higher income brings a different lifestyle, as you've pointed out. That's why I think a sales tax is more ideal than an income tax. For those who choose to live extravagant lifestyles with million dollar homes, they can pay the luxury taxes that are associated with such. If they choose to lead normal lives, no additional taxing.

We all reap the benefits from the government the exact same way... yet some are more responsible for those benefits than others?

Have you read the beer analogy? How can you charge one person more than another, for the same thing, based on their income? Should an executive pay more for a happy meal than you or I? Just because they are better able to afford it?

Edit:

Additionally, I think those who are required to pay more taxes are able to receive tax credit and deductions for things like charitable contributions, which encourages those with money to give back to the community and do some good with their money, rather than trusting it to our government to spend.

I also want to state that I agree with Post #23 and 24 by spart and tibbytib.

Also, executives are paid so much because companies are competitive, such are their salaries. Ford has to pay their executives these unreasonable amounts because if they don't, they'll lose those executives to GM or others.

I don't think it's a good thing, but that's why American Airlines still pays their execs millions of bonuses when they're laying off employees.

At the same time, I'm totally against the idea of governments regulating what companies can do. BUT, if they're dumping money into these companies (bail outs) then I really think they should put regulations on executive pays and bonuses over a specified period of time. Company execs (like AIG and others) are partly responsible for the way our economy is now, and their benefits should be restricted. If they want to be bailed out, their companies can be, but not their personal bank accounts.

tibbytib

Sorry this is getting way off topic, but I wanted to reply one last time.....

Well not everyone gets a great benefits package like you do man. You should feel lucky, really. My father working construction all his life was paying over 400 per month for benefits for me, my mom, brother and sister.

I dont quit understand your beer analogy, or maybe its a matter that I just dont agree with it. I think their should be luxury taxes as well as a base income tax that keeps everyone honest and contributing to the nation. Yeah, I guess you could be a schmuck and wear ratty old t shirts and eat at mcdonalds every day, and have millions in the bank because you're greedy like that. But in my opinion, if you live in this country and were able to take advantage of those monetary benefits, then its that persons responsibility to pay back into that system which he/she received all their wealth from.

Why would I charge more for a beer to a rich person? Why would I charge more for a big mac? Honestly, if I ever got to the point where I was making 250k a year, I would be more than happy to pay my share of taxes simply for the fact that its this country and the opportunities it provides that allowed me to raise my standard of living above the average. I would be MORE than happy to send the government 80k in taxes if Im bringing home 170k a year. PLEASE LET ME DO THAT!!! Unfortunately, my lifes passion of music will probably never get me to that goal, but I really wish I could say, "Damn, I gotta pay 80k to the governement this year. Looks like I'll have to wait till next year to get that Brand new 7 Series."

As you stated, the folks that make more money have more burdens put on them in their field of work. And just like the person who decides to not go that route, the biggest commonality they share is that they HAD A CHOICE and did choose to go that route. So if your bosses choose to make more money and work their ass off, its because they CHOSE to go that route. So, they also need to be able to step up to the plate and support the country that made it possible to be making all that money in and man up to the tax burden they now have.

You know whats so funny about all of this is the fact that most people making over 250k a year, be it literally ALL of my students parents (I am a piano instructor) all support raising taxes for the wealthy and lowering them for the middle class. They support that knowing that THEY will be the ones who will be paying higher taxes! They want to pay higher taxes because they know that is the right thing for the economy and they are educated enough, obviously since they are making over 250k a year, to realize that the economy needs that to stay alive. They realize that because people like you and me WORK for THEM. Only a handful of people that I know making over 250k a year a b****ing about higher taxes, and honestly, half of them are the "trust fund" babies who could care less about the economy and you and me. I dont understand why people in the lower middle class cannot support this. Its really fascinating to me. It really is.