On 02/12/2012 04:46 PM, wgm4u wrote: > Don't you think taxing the 'rich' is a panacea for all our woes?
The economy was better under the Clinton tax rates which taxed the rich more. And at the end of his term we had a surplus! Seems to me taxing the rich more works! > Why don't we just through the American Dream under the bus while we're at it!! You wingnuts already have thrown it under the bus! > Yep, Social Security and Medicare and all the ublic pensions have to be cut, > cut, cut, for the general good. Let's not end up like the silly boys and > girls (Public Unions) of Greece! WE can do better! You just want to give the government all that money you paid for social security? I didn't take you for being that altruistic, Billy. :-D > Is it fair that the Rich pay most of the taxes? Of course, because they benefit the most or do you have trouble understanding that? > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu<noozguru@...> wrote: >> And what short sighted ideas are those, Billy? Please elaborate. >> >> And which entitlements? You mean like the Social Security and Medicare >> you paid into? >> >> On 02/12/2012 03:48 PM, wgm4u wrote: >>> Taxing the 'rich' alone, will never get us out of our present condition, we >>> need to cut spending and entitlements (and government pensions). Your short >>> sighted ideas are the same as those leading Greece in to bankruptcy..... >>> >>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu<noozguru@> wrote: >>>> That's an opinion by Jarod Bernstein, an academic. I wonder if he ever >>>> worked in the real world? He has a problem defining a small business. >>>> I watched a business grow from one guys apartment to a company of over >>>> 400 people. As it got to be over 200 it started having problems. >>>> Entrepreneurs like to grow their companies so they can sell them off for >>>> big profits but the process becomes miserable both for the founder and >>>> employees. Going public with a company makes things worse as though it >>>> supplies financing it also makes the company less flexible and it shifts >>>> it's focus from pleasing the customer to pleasing the stockholder. >>>> >>>> Both the Republican and Democratic parties should be supporting small >>>> business. The Republicans lie to small business people to gain their >>>> support while passing pull the ladder up laws for the big corporations. >>>> Union support of the Democrats scares the hell out of small businesses. >>>> The tech sector avoid unionization by simply treating their employees >>>> right. That's not easy to do as you have to have managers willing to >>>> put their foot down and not allow turning the company into a monastery >>>> where tech geeks turn into tech monks looking for their badge of honor >>>> by working around the clock with diminishing results. HP did a study >>>> back in the 1990s that working more than 50 hours a week produced >>>> diminishing results. Creative development is also not understood by >>>> many suits as it is more an artistic discipline so hours have to be >>>> flexible. You may have someone who wants to spend untold hours cracking >>>> a problem but then you have to let them take the rest of the week off to >>>> let them recuperate. Your 9-to-5er's don't understand that. >>>> >>>> I love working in a small company because they are more fun and you get >>>> to connect with everyone. But as they grow larger you lose that >>>> connection and work becomes a grind. >>>> >>>> And then there is the problem that we may have produced most of what we >>>> need and don't need a whole lot of innovation for the time being. And >>>> some companies say they are doing just fine with the number of employees >>>> they have now and don't need to hire. And we can't have meaningless >>>> "make work" jobs just to employ people. Times have changed and our >>>> establishment hasn't. It needs to adjust or be replaced with an >>>> establishment that recognizes there is only enough work for people to >>>> work 1/3 of the year. There's the problem. >>>> >>>> On 02/12/2012 08:16 AM, marekreavis wrote: >>>>> I don't know myself, but that talking-point (used by both Republicans and >>>>> Democrats) may be just another sounds good foundational point without >>>>> much foundation. >>>>> >>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/24/opinion/small-businesses-arent-key-to-the-economic-recovery.html >>>>> >>>>> (Perhaps the New York Times is a suspect source, but the numbers they use >>>>> seem pretty objective.) >>>>> >>>>> *** >>>>> >>>>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wgm4u"<anitaoaks4u@> wrote: >>>>>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu<noozguru@> wrote: >>>>>>> On 02/11/2012 04:41 PM, wgm4u wrote: >>>>>>>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu<noozguru@> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 02/11/2012 02:31 PM, wgm4u wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Effectively, there are no more 'Rich' people to tax in Greece, Oh >>>>>>>>>> NO, what are we going to do? Cut the public sector (Unions) >>>>>>>>>> parasites,that's what! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> http://news.yahoo.com/protests-greek-cabinet-approves-debt-deal-104956543.html >>>>>>>>> About every 80 years the rich corner all the wealth and want to >>>>>>>>> impose >>>>>>>>> "austerity" on their serfs. The serfs rise up and murder the rich. >>>>>>>>> So >>>>>>>>> it goes. >>>>>>>> We need more rich, not less; is it fair that the rich pay MOST of the >>>>>>>> taxes? >>>>>>> Absolutely, they benefit the most from our laws. But you get more rich >>>>>>> by keeping the obeisantly rich from accumulating too much money. IOW, >>>>>>> more millionaires fewer or no billionaires. You accomplish that with >>>>>>> progressive taxation which are not there to benefit the government but >>>>>>> to discourage the rich from hording money. We need rehab centers for >>>>>>> money junkies. There's a business you might get rich at, Billy. :-D >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Love the comments in that article BTW. Shows how stupid most people are >>>>>>> when it comes to economics. >>>>>>> >>>>>> Taxing millionaires and Billionaires isn't going to cut it, Obama wants >>>>>> to tax small business as well, (the engine of our economy), that's why >>>>>> the Republicans are against his re-distribution schemes. >>>>>> >>> > >
