A recent revival of racism?

Post Reply New Topic

AHA!! ! Inuyasha is a LIBERAL!! !! !!

How does pointing out how government is wasting money and teaching kids to be self-sufficient have anything to do with Liberal Ideology... In all honesty, liberalism wants the opposite, where the masses are dependent on Government handouts, that's where liberalism leads.

You don't want the kids to pay income tax. That makes you a *gasp* LIBERAL!! !! !!

Well, Inuyasha, the Republican party has been bitching and moaning on one hand that the "job creators" shouldn't be hampered with taxation, while on the other, they b***h and moan how almost half of Americans don't pay any income tax due to poverty. They plan to remedy this by cutting taxes for the rich even more, while squeezing the rest of us of what little money we have in order to make up for the short fall in revenue. Your defense of poor urban youth not having to pay income tax seems to cast you in the role of a liberal.
By the way, a guy like me without a pot to piss in is in fact also a job creator, as I purchase products, thus keep the economy going. But the right refuses to see it that way.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

From what I've be reading, there's a larger amount of separatist groups, "88" hate groups, supremacists, and anti-immigration groups all over the world. There are lots of Anders Breiviks all over. Some are ball-less so they won't make the news. I read racist vitriol on WP from time to time, most of it is "undercover" because separatists tend to be ball-less. In greater numbers, however, that's a problem. They can freely come to WP and vent to their heart's content. Do they even take themselves seriously? You got me.

Considering they probably wouldn't make enough with that part time job to have to pay taxes on the income (without getting that money back later), your statement is rather laughable. Furthermore, these kids would have a part time job and would have to keep up with their school work, I seriously would think it would be cruel and unusual for them to have to deal with the mess that is known as the Tax Code.



Actually Liberals want to punish people for being successful in life. You guys go on and on about taxing the wealthy, the reality is you want to punish retirees for saving up for retirement (yeah 401ks and stuff get taxed when one draws money from that account) and you want to punish small business owners. The fact that 50% of the country isn't paying income taxes but is instead dependent on government handouts is downright dangerous for this country's continued survival. When people are paying taxes, they tend to pay more attention to what government is doing, and understand that those government handouts are from their money that they paid in taxes.

Three reasons why I suggested that kids shouldn't have to pay taxes (at least in the janitorial work).
1. They are not old enough to vote, and I don't think we should open the door to the IRS being able to also tax a kid's allowance money.
2. They wouldn't be making enough money to actually have to pay most taxes anyways because it is a part-time job.
3. They are kids whom will have school work that they have to do later in the evening, and quite frankly I think they are a little young to have to muddle through the mess of our current tax code which looks like an Explosion in a kite string factory.



They don't choose to see you that way because you are not a job creator, you are a consumer, you only give a potential demand for a product, and the product can just as easily be made in a different country.

Job Creators are investors and business owners, which you are neither. While you do generate some demand for products, that doesn't mean anything if no one is willing to invest in the company to make the product or hire anyone because of all the red tape generated by regulators gone wild.

Whether or not you want a product is immaterial Kraichgauer, if you don't have a job to make money you can't afford to buy what you want. Punishing small business owners with more taxes and regulations and giving you money that the government took from said business owner doesn't generate any new jobs (except maybe government lackeys), in fact it causes more people to be laid off.

The economy is not a fixed entity, it can grow or shrink in size overall, when you raise the cost of doing business in the US to the point US companies can't compete anymore, those companies will either shut down or leave the country, which makes the situation even worse as we continue in a death spiral.

Governments don't create wealth, private entrepeneurship creates wealth.

Also, taking the job away from the rich janitor, to provide jobs for poor kids, amounts to *gasp* WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION!! !!

Inuyasha is advocating SOCIALISM!! !!

That wealthy janitor, with his big, 6-figure income, is paying taxes that COULD otherwise be cut to "stimulate the economy." With that income, he can also feed his children (so that they don't have to eat out of dumpsters), and even take them to Disneyland every year.

You're going to assign his work to 30 different children, each being paid 1/30 as much as the janitor. Assuming that the wealthy janitor was "easily" making $100,000 per year, that is roughly $3,000 each. None of them are going to stimulate the economy with a trip to Disneyland. PLUS, you don't even want to tax them?!?!?!?!?!?

Perhaps Inuyasha is, in fact, a closeted bleeding-heart Liberal?

At least tell me that you aren't going to let any of these kids have health insurance. PLEASE!! !!

Actually I'm suggesting that Government stop wasting taxpayer money...



The Janitors work in public school, public schools are funded with taxpayer money. That janitor is making a lot more than a janitor in the private sector would make, and the school system is essentially wasting our money. The reason private schools are better at educating kids while needing to spend less money than public schools is rather simple, they can hold teachers, administrators, and staff accountable.



You do realize that under current tax law, $3,000 a year is well below the threshold of having to pay income taxes already...



Have you ever had a part time job? I'm guessing you haven't because you'd know that $3,000 a year means any money taken out of you check for income tax is going to be refunded to you at the end of the year because it is well below the threshold where income starts being taxed, however you still need to deal with the tax forms and all that rot. Then you have to worry about potential audits.

I consider it a serious waste of taxpayer money to audit a child making less than $3,000 a year.



If their parents have health insurance, chances are their kid is also on health insurance... If not, then in all honesty they probably wouldn't have health insurance because they are a part-time employee.

That's one reason why many small businesses may end up laying off most of their part-time employees often without even hiring any full-time help either, Obamacare forces that expense onto small businesses and those businesses can't afford that expense.

If the kid gets injured on the job, then we're dealing with workman's comp, and considering the fact it is a child there would be a lot of questions as to whether or not the school was having them do something that was rather hazardous and therefore in violation of child labor laws.

...By redistributing wealth. Very liberal indeed.


Actually, the good private schools are quite expensive. There are plenty of low-quality private religious schools.


That is current federal tax law. You do wish to expand the tax base, do you not?


I doubt that the IRS spends much time auditing children.


AHA!! ! You don't want to get rid of workmen's compensation and child labour laws!! ! These cost money, too!! !

Sorry, Mr. Inuyasha, but you're no Conservative!

I have a proposal for dealing with the problem of poverty, unemployment, and the dependency inducing incentives of our current system once and for all. Allow every adult individual a guaranteed living allowance. There would be no means testing so everyone gets it no matter how much money you make. There would be a regional adjustment based on local cost of living up to a fixed cap. Families with child dependents can apply for a little extra to support child care as can people with disabilities. If you work, your income does not deduct anything from the living allowance so there is never a disincentive to seek employment. To discourage idleness, unemployed adults would have to submit 60 hours of volunteer non-profit or community service work each month or pay a penalty of 50% of their living allowance for that month. The tax to fund it would be similar to the current payroll tax but the rate would be automatically set based on needed revenue and immune from political tampering. A single program could replace all subsidized housing, welfare, foodstamps, disability income, social security, etc... Also, minimum wage laws would become superfluous since employers are no longer paying employees for their most basic living costs. Free-marketers aught to be salivating over that.

YOU. ARE. A. GENIUS!! !!

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Well, Inuyasha, regardless is you consider me to be a job creator in the same sense as the examples you give, the fact of the matter is, people like me who don't have a pot to piss in have overwhelming buying power due to our sheer numbers. And there are more of us than there is of the rich, so Republicans owe us considerably more respect.
And as far as taxing retirees and small business people - you've been listening to too much of Fox Noise. The target of higher taxation are in fact the super rich and and mega -corporations. Back in the Eisenhower days, the super rich were taxed ninety percent - Obama doesn't want a tax hike anywhere that high.
As for imposing an income tax on those of us who could scarcely afford it, we'd be left destitute. It is not a matter of envy or class warfare to ask the super rich to pay what they had only been paying just a few years ago, because they can afford it. But it's certainly class warfare to demand that those of us who can't afford to be taxed must suddenly shoulder the country's financial burdens.
And most of all personally for me, those same Republicans are the same dirty sons-of-bitches who want to cease all special education and therapy for my autistic daughter. C'mon, the thing about real Americans is that we're an altruistic bunch. And that means, we can't and don't say: well, I've got mine, so the rest of you can go to hell.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

The problem is business owner's primary interest is not in creating jobs. Their interest is in creating and selling a product to as many people as possible for as little cost as possible. In the short term any individual firm can beat out the competition by employing as few workers as possible for as little as possible. That's the Walmart strategy. The problem is when every other firm follows suit in order to compete, that ultimately means less money in the hands of potential consumers and stagnant growth. You might argue that cheaper costs offsets the effect of less money in consumer hands, but the point is it's not a 100% offset because consumer demand is a function if disposable income rather than total income including living expenses.

If American workers were forced to take jobs that paid what third world employees receive the entire global economy would collapse. People need more than subsistence wages to be able to afford the fancy products and services today's major companies produce. We no longer live in the 19th century. Capitalism can't prop itself up on the upper class alone. It needs middle class consumers to grow its demand base.


There's simply no way the US can compete with third world unskilled labor without becoming a third world banana republic itself. If what you say is true we are doomed to a race to the bottom no matter what and that isn't even in the interests of workers or job creators alike. Also, despite what you may think I'm not dead set against reducing costs and government red tape. The problem is your favorite party is not simply for reforming useless and inefficient regulations, you're for getting rid of regulations that serve a purpose in protecting workers and the environment which all people must share.


I hear this often, yet no precise argument is ever given to logically demonstrate it's truth. Without government spending on public infrastructure private entrepreneurs wouldn't be able to create their wealth. Also, private entrepreneurs rely on literate workers and consumers. A private company isn't going to be able to do business in a third world cesspool with 80% illiteracy, lack of roads and transportation, lack of public water or sewage treatment, etc. Also, people need to be living beyond subsistence to have any free time to learn new skills to better their employment or start their own business. In the end "Job Creators" would be foolish to completely take for granted the function of government in providing an environment where business can prosper.

The first concern is being able to sell the good or service at such cost and quantity to produce a sufficient rate of return on capital invested.

However, that being said, there must be sufficient wages paid to insure that the goods or services produced can be bought.

ruveyn

My God!! ! We're actually in agreement!

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

No we are not in agreement, you are not entitled to what I earned because you are too lazy to work. The problem with entitlements is that they encourage people to simply rely on handouts.