Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
"The first step to winning the future is encouraging American innovation." That was Barack Obama in his State of the Union address last January, when he hit the theme repeatedly, using the word innovation or innovate 11 times. And on this issue, at least, Republicans seem in sync with Obama. Listen to Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich or Mitch Daniels and the word innovation pops up again and again. Everyone wants innovation and agrees that it is the key to America's future.
Innovation is as American as apple pie. It seems to accord with so many elements of our national character — ingenuity, freedom, flexibility, the willingness to question conventional wisdom and defy authority. But politicians are pinning their hopes on innovation for more urgent reasons. America's future growth will have to come from new industries that create new products and processes. Older industries are under tremendous pressure. Technological change is making factories and offices far more efficient. The rise of low-wage manufacturing in China and low-wage services in India is moving jobs overseas. The only durable strength we have — the only one that can withstand these gale winds — is innovation.
The Future of U.S. Innovation: Can Americans Keep Pace? - TIME
Interest on munis isn't a write off.Thanks for the link.
"Williams offered a hypothetical example: A retired person with $10 million invested in municipal bonds paying 5% interest, or $500,000 a year.
"Because there is no limit on how much tax-exempt interest you can earn without having to pay taxes, she pays nothing to the federal government," he said.
Or it's possible that some of these tax filers have a large portfolio, and booked a lot of taxable gains in the recent run-up in stocks. But they were able to fully offset those gains with the many capital losses they realized during the financial crisis, which made even the most experienced investor want to take their marbles and go home."
I don't think it proved your point, but thanks for trying.
I thought it was checkmate, since you said "they aren't allowed." Yes, they are.
And you can't write off capital losses against income (except for $3000 per year) only against capital gains.
So if you're going to claim victory because an evil rich guy had $500,000 in capital losses 2 years ago and capital gains of $500,000 last year and paid zero taxes, go right ahead. LOL!
I know you don't know, that's why I gave you the link where you could educate yourself.Too many regulations to read?
I wonder if that might hinder growth?
You could compare the pages of regulations before Obama took office to the number now.
Of course then you'd have to subtract.
When you find the numbers, let me know if you need help with the math.
Translation: I don't know.
Now go forth and learn something.
It's also a given that the top 1% never actually PAY that rate; often they have enough writeoffs to pay nothing in taxes.
sadly for you, according to IRS top 1% pay 40% of all Federal taxes but only earn 18% of all income. More importantly they are our most productive citizens, stealing from them is suicidal. Only a liberal would think stealing capital from those who know how to employ it makes sense.
God you're clueless. You honestly think some CEO earning 300 times what his employees earn give a sweet shit about them? Or you, if you happen to be one of said employees?
if I said anything about caring I'll pay you $10,000. Bet???
also, you know little so all you do is cut and paste, but this is not a cut and paste forum, it is a discussion or debate forum. You need to study up so you can participate in a discussion forum. We could all cut and paste all day long . Think!! PLease
I see. So all you do is repeat your talking points,
Yeah, asking you to educate yourself, what was I thinking?I know you don't know, that's why I gave you the link where you could educate yourself.Translation: I don't know.
Now go forth and learn something.
You don't even get satire. Sad.
I want the Tax Code revised to treat taxpayers more fairly. What's not to get?
Yeah, people writing off their losses, what a scandal!Interest on munis isn't a write off.I thought it was checkmate, since you said "they aren't allowed." Yes, they are.
And you can't write off capital losses against income (except for $3000 per year) only against capital gains.
So if you're going to claim victory because an evil rich guy had $500,000 in capital losses 2 years ago and capital gains of $500,000 last year and paid zero taxes, go right ahead. LOL!
Try as you might, there's no denying that the tax breaks are what's contributing to breaking the Treasury. Even sane Republicans admit that.
Tax credits must be changed to lower tax rates - Apr. 26, 2011
Repeal ALL Federal Labor laws
Repeal ALL Federal Labor laws
YES!!! Right on!!!!!!!
I was talking to someone recently about illegal immigration, I live in GA, and he was bemoaning the fact that since GA passed legislation aimed at curtailing the flow of illegal immigration the agriculture sector of GA is suffering. It has been proposed that prisoners and probationers work the fields instead of letting the free market do its job and the wages increase.
The argument against this is always that prices will increase, while simply ignoring the fact that wages will increase.
All we need is a government that will ensure that laws are followed so that the market sets the price of goods and the wages of workers.
Importing cheap exploitable workers is the opposite side of the same coin as over-reaching unions: one artificially deflates wages while the other inflates wages. Both are wrong.
It isn't the government's job to set wages.
Repeal ALL Federal Labor laws
And abolish the Dept of Labor while we're at it.
That honestly would do more for employment than anything else. If someone's best prospect is a $4/hr job today he has no choice to take it. He must be unemployed.
Labor laws make hiring a minefield for potential lawsuits, increasing costs dramatically. Cut all that and you cut the risk in hiring.
Hmmm, union workers inflate wages? LOL! In a capitalist society how is that wrong?
Repeal ALL Federal Labor laws
YES!!! Right on!!!!!!!
I was talking to someone recently about illegal immigration, I live in GA, and he was bemoaning the fact that since GA passed legislation aimed at curtailing the flow of illegal immigration the agriculture sector of GA is suffering. It has been proposed that prisoners and probationers work the fields instead of letting the free market do its job and the wages increase.
The argument against this is always that prices will increase, while simply ignoring the fact that wages will increase.
All we need is a government that will ensure that laws are followed so that the market sets the price of goods and the wages of workers.
Importing cheap exploitable workers is the opposite side of the same coin as over-reaching unions: one artificially deflates wages while the other inflates wages. Both are wrong.
It isn't the government's job to set wages.
Hmmm, union workers inflate wages? LOL! In a capitalist society how is that wrong? Are you a socialist?
This is not a thread for arguing which political party is correct, or for pointing out mistakes that any political commentator has made.
This is for serious discussion on reducing unemployment, for which progress has stagnated in the latest jobs report.
A previous thread suggested that companies pay people at a higher wage rate for working less, so they can hire more people to pick up the slack and reduce unemployment. This was criticized as being stupid because companies would not want to reduce their profits, despite having profits that are trillions of dollars higher than before the financial crisis: http:/krugman.blogs.nytimes。com/2011/07/02/net-lending-by-domestic-business/
Well, that's fine; if companies don't want to have an immediate drop in profits, the same thing can be done by giving full-time, permanent employees the option of working less at the same average wage they are now, and allowing companies to deduct part of the wage if they decide to continue working full time. The result is the same, people working less means more people with jobs, and wages will eventually rise back to where they were (and even higher) when companies have to raise wages to keep people from quitting for better jobs once the unemployment problem has been fixed.
Or full-time employees get a wage increase if they work less, but a wage decrease if they work full-time. If employees would prefer the first solution, and companies would prefer the second solution, this is the compromise that no one should be able to argue with.
So just an example:
Company A has three employees: Sara, Victor, and Khalifa, all of whom make $80,000 per year working 40 hours per week.
Inès is surviving on $12,000 per year from unemployment benefits.
Total work done: 120 hours per week. Cost to company: $240,000 per year. Cost to government: $12,000 per year.
**The law goes into effect**
Sara decides to continue working 40 hours per week, and her income goes down to $70,000 per year.
Victor and Khalifa decide to work just 30 hours per week, and their income goes down to $60,000 per year.
Inès is hired as a permanent employee but only for 20 hours per week, and makes $50,000 per year.
Total work done: 120 hours per week (no change). Cost to company: $240,000 per year (no change). Cost to government: $0 per year.
There is a more detailed explanation of why this works available at http:/pastebin。com/Q86Zhgs9 but if you have any comments, please post them here! If you want the President to address the unemployment problem now, instead of waiting years and years for new products to be developed that companies need to hire for, contact the White House to tell them your concerns here: http:/www。whitehouse。gov/contact/
Mr.Nick said:Hiring incentives should be given to private sector businesses (with emphasis on small businesses). Something along the lines of tax breaks.
The problem is, this administration and the previous congress gave small incentives to businesses, however those incentives were offset by new taxes, or regulations and not every business qualified for those incentives... Not to mention the majority of those businesses that did receive those incentives labor was unionized.
The only way you're going to create jobs is to allow the free market to dictate labor costs and especially limit government intervention (regulations).
This isn't a dictated economy, yet the progressives treat capitalism as a dictated economy... In reality its the government thats holding this economy back with their intervention.
In reality the government spends more time stealing and punishing businesses than they do helping them... On one hand you have asshats like Obamofuck claiming hes helping these businesses by giving them incentives, however on the other hand he (and democrats in general) will pander to their little socialist clowns by ordering his cronies at the state and local government levels to strongly regulate these said businesses and fine them if they don't bow down to their socialist authoritarian demands/regulations.
Then you got shit like Obamacare, social security and unemployment which further makes these businesses nervous about their future.
And businesses have had the luxury of doing just that for over a decade now.
Also, businesses are treated as individual entities, so when Obamofuck attacks the "rich" hes attacking businesses as well.
Obama always spews his 200k "threshold" as what defines wealthy. Well 200k is peanuts to a small business, yet those small businesses are treated as individuals (with a few exceptions).... Not to mention the progressive states such as Illinois are more brutal when it comes to taxation.
And businesses have had the luxury of doing just that for over a decade now.
what luxury??? Huge competition from China and India, the highest taxes in world, a huge housing recession, and now an anti business president who had 2 communist parents, wants single payer and cap and trade.
Libs hate business becuase they don't understand that it provides the jobs and products that got us fro the stone age to here. You'd only hate your savior it if you were a nutso marxist like BO who wants to overthrow the system.
What are you talking about, national per-quarter income has increased by $528 billion since the recovery started! http:/economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/30/the-wageless-profitable-recovery/We have had 1 style of Government for so many years people don't know anything different.
...
Even if we manage to squeeze past this "Great Recession" do you have any idea how long it will be until we are doing well again?
The other choice is described in the OP, and explained in further detail here:So here we are, big Government Reps and Big Government Dems have failed. There is only one choice and thats to massively shrink Government or I guess end the country There literally is no other choice.
You are right that people still blame the Bush administration:Republicans had their turn in office and OHHHH boy did they fuck it up This post might seem oddly 1 sided considering I bitching about people being partisan yet there is one reality you would have to miss DEMOCRATS HAVE TWO THIRDS OF THE FUCKING POWER, and up until 5 months ago they had 100 fucking % power. Bush and the Rep have been beatin to a pulp for what they did and rightfully so, yet here these fuck wads are defending the ZERO repeals of Bush era policy Democrats (and Obama) just like the crazy ass shit for brains Bush-bots did.
