Obama’s Class Warfare

[GandD 5,966]

Apparently you've never heard of vetos. Pay real close attention to what happens at the 2:30 mark of the video below:

No I'm quite aware of it. You don't think they'll set him up to veto bills for political posturing? Come on now. You've got a lot more faith in the system than I do. Write the bill, send it through, let him veto it, them campaign with it in 2016. That's how it works. That's why the house kept voting on obama care. They new the senate wouldn't pass it. But all the new republicans and tea party congressmen/women needed votes against obamacare on their record for the campaign season. And I'm not suggesting only republicans are guilty of this. The keystone pipeline debacle is an example of this. Democrats wanting to appear on record as supporting the environment. Even though the pipeline would be far safer than other means of transportation. Reasonable people see these things.

[LostInAK 43]

No I'm quite aware of it. You don't think they'll set him up to veto bills for political posturing? Come on now. You've got a lot more faith in the system than I do. Write the bill, send it through, let him veto it, them campaign with it in 2016. That's how it works. That's why the house kept voting on obama care. They new the senate wouldn't pass it. But all the new republicans and tea party congressmen/women needed votes against obamacare on their record for the campaign season. And I'm not suggesting only republicans are guilty of this. The keystone pipeline debacle is an example of this. Democrats wanting to appear on record as supporting the environment. Even though the pipeline would be far safer than other means of transportation. Reasonable people see these things.

Personally I think wasting time passing bills that you know are going to get vetoed, so that you can use the veto as leverage for later political fights is pretty bad governance. I don't care which side is doing it.

[GandD 5,966]

Personally I think wasting time passing bills that you know are going to get vetoed, so that you can use the veto as leverage for later political fights is pretty bad governance. I don't care which side is doing it.

Amen brother.

[Póg mo 1,749]

The smart play for this brewery to minimize their increased wage and payroll tax costs might be to automate more of those warm body jobs, or move their facility to a location with lower labor costs. Perhaps south of the boarder?

That would never happen in the good old US of A.

Like I said, labor costs is only one factor at play and raising the minimum wage does not necessarily mean a company will choose to move else where.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The first link shows the total number of people receiving food stamps at 46 million. 3 million higher than what I posted in that graph. Thank you for your assistance in making my point!!

If you believe that I made your point with the links I posted, then you either haven't read the material contained there or you haven't grasped it. Just what one would expect from a sock puppet.

[Sousuke 1,214]

Regarding the Colt reference, per the brewers association the average brew cost is about 10% labor. Therefore if a Colt currently costs 2 USD and the company raised everyone's wage in the company by 20% that would relate as follows .20*1.2=.24 cents. IE the cost would climb 4 cents or 2%. It would obviously be much less given that the number of minimum wage earners in the company are probably not a majority. Therefore someone getting a 20% raise probably doesn't mind that the goods they buy just inflated by 1-2%.

On the other hand, the darker side is this. The company probably wouldn't raise costs. They may find its more cost effective for them to upgrade their production line and then layoff 5% of their production people because of the more efficient equipment.

Edited January 25, 2015 by Sousuke

[Sousuke 1,214]

I just want everyone else to pay the same percentage as me. Isn't that what we all want?

I think to help your argument you should include all taxes. For instance most state consumption taxes are regressive. They effect the poor far more than the wealthy.

Another factor is discretionary income compared to taxes. The poor will pay more in taxes than they have in discretionary income (mostly - because frankly they have little to no discretionary income).

The wealthy will not.

Edited January 25, 2015 by Sousuke

[Póg mo 1,749]

Regarding the Colt reference, per the brewers association the average brew cost is about 10% labor. Therefore if a Colt currently costs 2 USD and the company raised everyone's wage in the company by 20% that would relate as follows .20*1.2=.24 cents. IE the cost would climb 4 cents or 2%. It would obviously be much less given that the number of minimum wage earners in the company are probably not a majority. Therefore someone getting a 20% raise probably doesn't mind that the goods they buy just inflated by 1-2%.

On the other hand, the darker side is this. The company probably wouldn't raise costs. They may find its more cost effective for them to upgrade their production line and then layoff 5% of their production people because of the more efficient equipment.

The thing that everyone forgets is that if pay doesn't increase and inflation happens anyway and it will. Most people, including the middle class, will see their incomes eroded.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

For instance most state consumption taxes are regressive. They effect the poor far more than the wealthy.

That is a canard. Consumption tax is based on a percentage of goods and/or services purchased. Those with more money to spend, spend more and pay more taxes, even as a percentage of income. What could be more equitable? Further, many of the plans put forth would give everyone an equal rebate, that would immediately favor those that consume less.

[Sousuke 1,214]

That is a canard. Consumption tax is based on a percentage of goods and/or services purchased. Those with more money to spend, spend more and pay more taxes, even as a percentage of income. What could be more equitable? Further, many of the plans put forth would give everyone an equal rebate, that would immediately favor those that consume less.

If a wealthy person gets a headache they go and buy 4 dollar painkiller. Same for the poor.

I get what you are saying but it makes the assumption that the wealthy and the poor spend their income on goods and services at a 1:1 ratio as a percentage of income.

(Also the wealthy have the mobility to get lower taxes)

Edited January 25, 2015 by Sousuke

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

If a wealthy person gets a headache they go and buy 4 dollar painkiller. Same for the poor.

I get what you are saying but it makes the assumption that the wealthy and the poor spend their income on goods and services at a 1:1 ratio as a percentage of income.

You can use California's sales tax as an example of how to still make the tax progressive. You can exempt installation and repair from being taxes as a service, as well as food products. Then add increased taxes and fees on certain "sin" items like alcohol and tobacco, luxury tax on excessive purchases, and fees on items that create other costs related to disposal and impact on the environment. While I may not agree with all those, or exactly how they are applied, is does show how what appears to be a flat tax can be made extremely progressive.

[unsmiley 111]

Not exactly, but continue drinking that koolaid. Uncle O will make it all better. Do a bit of research on the difference between income taxes and capital gains taxes. While you're at it, keep in mind Romney was right about only 47% of the people in this country paying income taxes.

I bolded and underlined the word INCOME for the mentally challenged here.

Absolutely true. Before worrying about the rich paying even more of the load, we need those 50% freeloading to get some skin in the game.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The ultra wealthy only spend a small percentage of their huge incomes. The poor and the low end of the middle class spend all or most of their income. Taxes are due on more than food and clothing. Taxes are due on properties, for example. And even those that rent effectively end up paying those taxes as they do get factored into the rent they pay.

Either way, if you pay, say 5% worth of consumption taxes on all of your income, then your effective consumption tax rate is 5%. If, on the other hand, you pay 15% of consumption taxes on 20% of your income (because that's just all you need to spend to live the life you want to live), then your effective tax rate is 3%. That is the very definition of a regressive tax and that is what you'll find in most - if not all - states of the union.

[Sousuke 1,214]

You can use California's sales tax as an example of how to still make the tax progressive. You can exempt installation and repair from being taxes as a service, as well as food products. Then add increased taxes and fees on certain "sin" items like alcohol and tobacco, luxury tax on excessive purchases, and fees on items that create other costs related to disposal and impact on the environment. While I may not agree with all those, or exactly how they are applied, is does show how what appears to be a flat tax can be made extremely progressive.

Well the wealthy are much more like to take advantage of the installation / repair exemption. The poor won't be able to afford it, or will be renting.

I think if you compared a poor person's income to a wealthy persons in Caliifornia, the poor person probably has up to a 1/3 of their income exposed to state and local taxes through consumption. A wealthy person is going to be much lower.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

(Also the wealthy have the mobility to get lower taxes)

California makes an expectation that you will do that, and added the line to the state income tax return for "Use Tax" (which is just uncollected Sales Tax), so you could pay up what you owe. For instance, making a purchase in a district with a lower tax rate and consuming, or using that purchase in a primarily higher rate district. I get to do my quarterly sales tax returns, and just in my county, I have about 8 different districts with differing rates that I have to allocate all the sales tax I collect toward. It is getting ridiculous, when I do make sales in those districts.