Reality sets in for Oregon governor

[bripat9643]

Tax expenditures equals "Tax Write offs", in other words, have a FLAT progressive tax rate, and not have all of these things that are deductible through the long form.... maybe a lower "progressive tax rate" where everyone is treated the same as far as not having all of these things that can be written off to lower their tax rate

I would like to see a flat income tax rate on all income earned in excess of $50,000 a year.

I had read that when income taxes were first instituted, the STANDARD DEDUCTION, was equivalent to $68,000 in today's dollars. Income tax was never meant to hit the middle class or lower, I suppose?

Actually, that's exactly what the progressives who pushed it intended. Anyone who believes progressive lies is the ultimate fool. We normally call these people "Democrats."

 

[bripat9643]

Tax expenditures equals "Tax Write offs", in other words, have a FLAT progressive tax rate, and not have all of these things that are deductible through the long form.... maybe a lower "progressive tax rate" where everyone is treated the same as far as not having all of these things that can be written off to lower their tax rate

I would like to see a flat income tax rate on all income earned in excess of $50,000 a year.

I had read that when income taxes were first instituted, the STANDARD DEDUCTION, was equivalent to $68,000 in today's dollars. Income tax was never meant to hit the middle class or lower, I suppose?

The original income tax was only on the wealthy, yes.

And the tax form was one page.

But as government grew, so did the tax bill.

Those tax rates lasted about 2 years. As soon as WW I started, they were jacked up to astronomical rates and applied to nearly everyone. That's what the supporters of the income tax had in mind from the beginning.

 

[bripat9643]

Minimum wage is far more a political issue than an economic issue. There have been a ton of economic studies on the effect of minimum wage increases. The overwhelming conclusion is increases in minimum wage have little impact on employment. Note the word little. Anytime the cost of doing business rises, there is some impact However, increases in minimum wage are offset by a number of factors. For example, increases in spendable income increase the demand for goods and services and thus labor. Some employers will raise prices. Other employers will increase efficiency of operation.

Minimum wages increase are not a cure for poverty nor or they a disaster for businesses. They certainly benefit valuable low paid employees but force some margin workers to seek other more suitable jobs or training to increase their skills.

No one starts an business just to hire, the only feasible reason to start a business to make living off the profits. Dumbass
The only successful business is an debt free one operating within its means...
So everything depends operational costs...

I think that was the thought originated by cotton and cane plantation owners of the 1800s.

It's the intention of everyone who has ever run a business.

 

[bripat9643]

saying it raises the earnings is not a true statement. They didn't earn it, the steal it from other tax payers.
You take away all the silly ass social programs Im forced to contribute towards and give me my money back, I could be driving a new Corvette instead of my truck.

Ford signed it into law. Reagan GREATLY expanded the program.
You probably think low wage earners should do what? Tell their tax preparer; no dude, do not get me that refund.

They are following the law. They are low wage . Not stupid.

Do you take advantage of the tax code? Shame on you eh?
Hey republicans control congress. Why don't they repeal the law for the EITC?

The point he's making is that the tax code is a means by which one group plunders another. However, that went right over your head.

 

[bripat9643]

saying it raises the earnings is not a true statement. They didn't earn it, the steal it from other tax payers.
You take away all the silly ass social programs Im forced to contribute towards and give me my money back, I could be driving a new Corvette instead of my truck.

Ford signed it into law. Reagan GREATLY expanded the program.
You probably think low wage earners should do what? Tell their tax preparer; no dude, do not get me that refund.

They are following the law. They are low wage . Not stupid.

Do you take advantage of the tax code? Shame on you eh?
Hey republicans control congress. Why don't they repeal the law for the EITC?

Its why Im not a registered republican, they don't do whats right for the country.
Someone that first collects welfare all year and does nothing, does not deserve to get money back that they never paid in the first place.
And these are the ones crying about the rich not paying their fair share.

so you think Democrats do what's right for the country? Really?

 

[bripat9643]

Tax expenditures equals "Tax Write offs", in other words, have a FLAT progressive tax rate, and not have all of these things that are deductible through the long form.... maybe a lower "progressive tax rate" where everyone is treated the same as far as not having all of these things that can be written off to lower their tax rate

I would like to see a flat income tax rate on all income earned in excess of $50,000 a year.

I had read that when income taxes were first instituted, the STANDARD DEDUCTION, was equivalent to $68,000 in today's dollars. Income tax was never meant to hit the middle class or lower, I suppose?

The first income tax in 1862 applied only to those with a wage of over $600 a year which was the standard deduction. In today's dollars it would be about $15,000.

I couldn't find the article i had read a few years ago, but I did find this....

I should have said PERSONAL EXEMPTION, instead of Standard Deduction, and since the 16th amendment was passed....but here is what I did find, the personal exemption in 1913 was $3000/$4000 for married people.

and i did find an inflation chart where it shows $3000 in 1913 is the equivalent to $71, 823 in today's worth, and $4000 is worth for an exemption today $95,764.

US Inflation Calculator

Historical Individual Income Tax Parameters

then it shows, AFTER personal exemptions are taken, from $0 to $20,000 the tax rate was 1% on taxable income, and that in today's dollars would mean from $0 to $478,822.22 was taxed at a 1% tax rate.

What did it show the rates were at the end of WW I?

 

[bripat9643]

They live in a socialist society what do you expect??

Apple is a government run company in China?

That's China who cares??
Some day their people will get sick of living under socialism...

You are confused.

The public school system comes from socialism. Would you prefer that the poor go uneducated for lack of the ability to pay?

Do you believe they would go uneducated because you know you wouldn't contribute a dime to provide them with one?

 

[Toro]

It's not surprising that the governor of Oregon has walked back from a $15 minimum wage.

It's a bad idea, and will cost a lot of jobs, especially outside of Portland.

 

[kiwiman127]

What do righties think minimum wage earners will do with this extra cash? Put it in savings? Play the stock market? Gamble? They will put it back into the economy by buying goods and services.

Not when less of them are working as a result.

That is conjecture and remains to be seen. Most min wage earners are still stuck at $7.25/hr. Let's not forget that Walmart puts out donation bins for their employees every holiday and many of them are on SNAP cards and welfare. Who pays for that?

So punish the successful??

Who had held wages to flat growth? The unsuccessful?
Up until the 80's, companies reward their workers high productivity which contributed greatly to the companies profits. Then things changed. The money stayed at the top. CEO's bonuses grew to the outlandish sums that they are now.
Is the phenomena good for the US economy? No! You'd be very hard pressed to find any economist that doesn't believe that the flat wage growth which has lead to record inequality has hurt our economies stability.
In 1980, the American middle class was the wealthiest middle class in the world, now the US middle class is ranked 19th.
Middle class Americans: Not so wealthy by global standards
Where Does the World's Wealthiest Middle Class Live?

Other countries’ middle class incomes have grown since 2000. The United States’ has not. Look at the European middle classes income growth compared to the US.
CHANGE IN MEDIAN
INCOME SINCE 2000
COUNTRY
Britain-19.7
Canada-19.7
Ireland-16.2
Netherlands-13.9
Spain-4.1
Germany-1.4
United States-0.3
Tell me this is good for the US economy, tell me this is good for you and your future generations. Come on, tell me!

You can thank the Dim policy of opening the floodgates to cheap imported labor for that problem

.

So all those illegals drove up American CEO's pay?
Europe has also had immigrants, the yet CEO pay is much, much less and the working classes wages have risen much, much more than the American working class.
Naturally as a loyal tool, you'd come to that conclusion.
CEO Compensation in the US Vs. the World

 

[bripat9643]

Not when less of them are working as a result.

That is conjecture and remains to be seen. Most min wage earners are still stuck at $7.25/hr. Let's not forget that Walmart puts out donation bins for their employees every holiday and many of them are on SNAP cards and welfare. Who pays for that?

So punish the successful??

Who had held wages to flat growth? The unsuccessful?
Up until the 80's, companies reward their workers high productivity which contributed greatly to the companies profits. Then things changed. The money stayed at the top. CEO's bonuses grew to the outlandish sums that they are now.
Is the phenomena good for the US economy? No! You'd be very hard pressed to find any economist that doesn't believe that the flat wage growth which has lead to record inequality has hurt our economies stability.
In 1980, the American middle class was the wealthiest middle class in the world, now the US middle class is ranked 19th.
Middle class Americans: Not so wealthy by global standards
Where Does the World's Wealthiest Middle Class Live?

Other countries’ middle class incomes have grown since 2000. The United States’ has not. Look at the European middle classes income growth compared to the US.
CHANGE IN MEDIAN
INCOME SINCE 2000
COUNTRY
Britain-19.7
Canada-19.7
Ireland-16.2
Netherlands-13.9
Spain-4.1
Germany-1.4
United States-0.3
Tell me this is good for the US economy, tell me this is good for you and your future generations. Come on, tell me!

You can thank the Dim policy of opening the floodgates to cheap imported labor for that problem

.

So all those illegals drove up American CEO's pay?
Europe has also had immigrants, the yet CEO pay is much, much less and the working classes wages have risen much, much more than the American working class.
Naturally as a loyal tool, you'd come to that conclusion.
CEO Compensation in the US Vs. the World

We're talking about middle class wages, not CEO pay. Europe hasn't had nearly as much immigration as the United States, and most of their immigrants have been the bottom of the barrel. They haven't imported vast numbers of highly educated tech workers to take middle class jobs.

 

[paulitician]

It saddens me to say it, but the Republican Party really does resemble the Nazi Party these days. They hate and abuse the least fortunate and vulnerable among us. And their constant Warmongering is gonna lead us into WWIII. The similarities with the Nazis are disturbingly eery.

 

[Flopper]

Tax expenditures equals "Tax Write offs", in other words, have a FLAT progressive tax rate, and not have all of these things that are deductible through the long form.... maybe a lower "progressive tax rate" where everyone is treated the same as far as not having all of these things that can be written off to lower their tax rate

I would like to see a flat income tax rate on all income earned in excess of $50,000 a year.

I had read that when income taxes were first instituted, the STANDARD DEDUCTION, was equivalent to $68,000 in today's dollars. Income tax was never meant to hit the middle class or lower, I suppose?

The first income tax in 1862 applied only to those with a wage of over $600 a year which was the standard deduction. In today's dollars it would be about $15,000.

let me find the link i had read, it could have been when income tax was first instituted with employer taking out the taxes....? give me a few minutes...to find it.

The income tax was implemented twice in the 19th century and then struck down as unconstitutional. Then they rammed through the 16th amendment in 1913 and yes, it was never meant to hit middle class and lower income earners, but that is why you never give the government that kind of power in the first place.

It's hard to say what the United States would be like today without an income tax or some equivalent means of raising revenue. However, I believe had there not been an income tax in 1913, there would have certainly been one at outbreak of WWI and if not, then during the great depression, or WWII, or the cold war, or with the demand for services that only the federal government could provide.

 

[Flopper]

Tax expenditures equals "Tax Write offs", in other words, have a FLAT progressive tax rate, and not have all of these things that are deductible through the long form.... maybe a lower "progressive tax rate" where everyone is treated the same as far as not having all of these things that can be written off to lower their tax rate

I would like to see a flat income tax rate on all income earned in excess of $50,000 a year.

I had read that when income taxes were first instituted, the STANDARD DEDUCTION, was equivalent to $68,000 in today's dollars. Income tax was never meant to hit the middle class or lower, I suppose?

The first income tax in 1862 applied only to those with a wage of over $600 a year which was the standard deduction. In today's dollars it would be about $15,000.

I couldn't find the article i had read a few years ago, but I did find this....

I should have said PERSONAL EXEMPTION, instead of Standard Deduction, and since the 16th amendment was passed....but here is what I did find, the personal exemption in 1913 was $3000/$4000 for married people.

and i did find an inflation chart where it shows $3000 in 1913 is the equivalent to $71, 823 in today's worth, and $4000 is worth for an exemption today $95,764.

US Inflation Calculator

Historical Individual Income Tax Parameters

then it shows, AFTER personal exemptions are taken, from $0 to $20,000 the tax rate was 1% on taxable income, and that in today's dollars would mean from $0 to $478,822.22 was taxed at a 1% tax rate.

Ah, you're referring to the income tax of 1913. The first income tax was in 1862 and lasted till 1871. I think you're numbers look right for the 1913 tax.

 

[Flopper]

That damn reality slaps the left in the face every time.

Oregon Governor Abandons $15+ Minimum Wage

Facing a barrage of criticism from business, and labor skepticism over threats of higher unemployment, Oregon Governor Kate Brown is scaling back her $15.52 minimum wage proposal.

A November report by the Manhattan Institute, “Counterproductive: The Employment and Income Effects of Raising America’s Minimum Wage to $12 and to $15 per Hour,” concludes that raising minimum wages is likely to result in adverse consequences that would lower total national income levels.

“The earnings gained for those who would keep their jobs would be outweighed by the earnings lost by those who would become jobless,” the report detailed. “As a result, the net income gains tend to be smaller or more negative when using the annual earnings approach than when using the wage approach.”

Facing concerns from the right and the left that her minimum wage proposal was an obvious job killer in Oregon, Gov. Brown blinked on January 28 and has scaled back her proposal to only a $.50 raise per hour statewide July increase, from $9.25 to $9.75-per-hour. The Portland metro area would see an increase in July 2017 to $11.25 an hour, with the rest of the state’s minimum wages rising to $10.25 an hour.

Oregon Governor Abandons $15+ Minimum Wage - Breitbart

Sad. People will be stuck making min wage so the CEO's can make millions off the workers backs.

You're only stuck if choose to be stuck.

Sure sure. Everyone has no kids,no rent,no bills so its SOOOO EASY to get a college education and get a good job...oh wait never mind now college educations aren't worth the paper they are printed on.

Sorry but mine and my husbands paid off handsomely...with that said I don't care for taking care of people who don't have the motivation or desire to better themselves, if someone needs hand up that's fine but after about two years and you haven't done it you're on your own. Public assistance is not and was never meant to be a career. If you can't afford children don't have them, you're not being fair to them or yourself

People I know WORK and HAVE WORKED since they were 16 and still need food stamps and medicaid etc. Companies need to pay more simple as that. A CEO does NOT deserve 50 times more pay than the worker making and selling the damn product. I don't give a shit WHAT JOB someone has it should pay a livable wage. My wife is a CNA and doesn't make enough money in this SHIT HOLE state.. She made about 2$ more in North Carolina but even then it was hard to make ends meet....it's a skill she had to LEARN,GET LICENSED FOR etc. Again it should be paid a living wage no matter the job. Not everyone is as blessed with the brains for college,the money for college or the support. I could not stand going to college it BORED me to death. I got a CDL and that was a big damn BUST. Again something I had to learn to do and get licensed and now have 9 years experience but can't find work....maybe NOW its because of my driving record but when I first got the license it was not. All around we were dealt a real bullshit hand and the world can kiss my ass for all I care. I yearn for the day the country fucking collapses on its self and of course we the poor will get the blame but not the rich asshole CEO'S making all the money for a lazy ass job. I HATE people who do better than I do because I DID bust my ass but I am happy now to sit back and take what I can and make the whole rotten structure collapse on its self. Simple as that. I did what I was told was the way to success. LEARN A SKILL. Yep did that. Worked real well NOT! So now live by my own rules. Do WHATEVER it takes to get what I WANT AND NEED. No matter WHO gets in the way or gets hurt by it as long as me and mine survive.I didn't cause this problem I am merely expected to DEAL WITH IT by those that created the god damn problem.

There are millions of Americans that share your problem. I grew up in 1940's and 50's. My Dad was in the service when I was young and then managed a business. My Mom worked off an on to earn addition money for the family. I never felt we lacked for anything we really needed. We had pretty nice home, a car, we went on vacation every summer. That all changes with globalization, the demise of unions, and free trade, American workers found themselves in completion with foreign workers that would work more for less pay. Just picking up a skill and the willingness to work hard was not enough. The result is many millions of workers need government assistance just survive.

 

[bripat9643]

I would like to see a flat income tax rate on all income earned in excess of $50,000 a year.

I had read that when income taxes were first instituted, the STANDARD DEDUCTION, was equivalent to $68,000 in today's dollars. Income tax was never meant to hit the middle class or lower, I suppose?

The first income tax in 1862 applied only to those with a wage of over $600 a year which was the standard deduction. In today's dollars it would be about $15,000.

let me find the link i had read, it could have been when income tax was first instituted with employer taking out the taxes....? give me a few minutes...to find it.

The income tax was implemented twice in the 19th century and then struck down as unconstitutional. Then they rammed through the 16th amendment in 1913 and yes, it was never meant to hit middle class and lower income earners, but that is why you never give the government that kind of power in the first place.

It's hard to say what the United States would be like today without an income tax or some equivalent means of raising revenue. However, I believe had there not been an income tax in 1913, there would have certainly been one at outbreak of WWI and if not, then during the great depression, or WWII, or the cold war, or with the demand for services that only the federal government could provide.

That's exactly why we should have never adopted an income tax. We never would have gone to war in 1917 if we didn't have one.

 

[francoHFW]

Let me show the liberal mindset at work here.



One-third of the "involuntarily uninsured" are high school dropouts. That's a big chunk.

Like I said before, individuals making bad decisions, and now they want the rest of us to carry them on our backs for the rest of their lives.

But what really reveals the mindset of a liberal is that they call the people being forced to carry these high school dropouts "freeloaders"!

The people who are voluntarily uninsured are being forced to buy a commercial product (health insurance) and pay higher rates to help subsidize high school dropouts. And these are who the liberals call "freeloaders". It just doesn't get more Orwellian or Randian than that.

Example:

CORNISH: For months, Democrats had expressly argued that the penalty charge under the new law was not a tax and it seems as though the court has described it as a tax, so what do you consider this?

PELOSI: What I call this is the free rider provision. Call it what you will, but the fact is that some people who will not, even though they're younger and healthier and have some resources, decide they're invincible and they're not going to pay into a system. So, when they get sick, then they think they can just dip into it and that makes it more expensive for other people. And so, in order to eliminate the free rider piece of this, there's a penalty to be paid if you don't want to participate. Call it what you will. What it does is lower cost for the American people and it's a fair way to go.


Another example:

no one forced anyone onto anything except obama forcing all of us to buy ins or get fined

NO MORE GD FREELOADERS!

The main thing is to go after all those "freeloaders" who refuse to buy their fair share of insurance.

There are plenty more examples from this forum.

Freeloaders are those who refuse to buy insurance and are NOT paying for the unfortunate.

 

[Flopper]

I had read that when income taxes were first instituted, the STANDARD DEDUCTION, was equivalent to $68,000 in today's dollars. Income tax was never meant to hit the middle class or lower, I suppose?

The first income tax in 1862 applied only to those with a wage of over $600 a year which was the standard deduction. In today's dollars it would be about $15,000.

let me find the link i had read, it could have been when income tax was first instituted with employer taking out the taxes....? give me a few minutes...to find it.

The income tax was implemented twice in the 19th century and then struck down as unconstitutional. Then they rammed through the 16th amendment in 1913 and yes, it was never meant to hit middle class and lower income earners, but that is why you never give the government that kind of power in the first place.

It's hard to say what the United States would be like today without an income tax or some equivalent means of raising revenue. However, I believe had there not been an income tax in 1913, there would have certainly been one at outbreak of WWI and if not, then during the great depression, or WWII, or the cold war, or with the demand for services that only the federal government could provide.

That's exactly why we should have never adopted an income tax. We never would have gone to war in 1917 if we didn't have one.

Nations go to war and then find ways to pay for it. Not having the income to finance a war has never stopped us. I rather doubt the lack of funds would have stopped the US after Pearl Harbor. It certainly did stop us in the revolutionary war or civil war.

 

[bripat9643]

The first income tax in 1862 applied only to those with a wage of over $600 a year which was the standard deduction. In today's dollars it would be about $15,000.

let me find the link i had read, it could have been when income tax was first instituted with employer taking out the taxes....? give me a few minutes...to find it.

The income tax was implemented twice in the 19th century and then struck down as unconstitutional. Then they rammed through the 16th amendment in 1913 and yes, it was never meant to hit middle class and lower income earners, but that is why you never give the government that kind of power in the first place.

It's hard to say what the United States would be like today without an income tax or some equivalent means of raising revenue. However, I believe had there not been an income tax in 1913, there would have certainly been one at outbreak of WWI and if not, then during the great depression, or WWII, or the cold war, or with the demand for services that only the federal government could provide.

That's exactly why we should have never adopted an income tax. We never would have gone to war in 1917 if we didn't have one.

Nations go to war and then find ways to pay for it. Not having the income to finance a war has never stopped us. I rather doubt the lack of funds would have stopped the US after Pearl Harbor. It certainly did stop us in the revolutionary war or civil war.

Lincoln would not have been able to prosecute his war without his illegal income tax. The Founding Fathers funding their war by debasing the currency. FDR did the same thing. In all cases, the government has never been honest with citizens about the true cost of war.

 

[bripat9643]

Let me show the liberal mindset at work here.



One-third of the "involuntarily uninsured" are high school dropouts. That's a big chunk.

Like I said before, individuals making bad decisions, and now they want the rest of us to carry them on our backs for the rest of their lives.

But what really reveals the mindset of a liberal is that they call the people being forced to carry these high school dropouts "freeloaders"!

The people who are voluntarily uninsured are being forced to buy a commercial product (health insurance) and pay higher rates to help subsidize high school dropouts. And these are who the liberals call "freeloaders". It just doesn't get more Orwellian or Randian than that.

Example:

CORNISH: For months, Democrats had expressly argued that the penalty charge under the new law was not a tax and it seems as though the court has described it as a tax, so what do you consider this?

PELOSI: What I call this is the free rider provision. Call it what you will, but the fact is that some people who will not, even though they're younger and healthier and have some resources, decide they're invincible and they're not going to pay into a system. So, when they get sick, then they think they can just dip into it and that makes it more expensive for other people. And so, in order to eliminate the free rider piece of this, there's a penalty to be paid if you don't want to participate. Call it what you will. What it does is lower cost for the American people and it's a fair way to go.


Another example:

no one forced anyone onto anything except obama forcing all of us to buy ins or get fined

NO MORE GD FREELOADERS!

The main thing is to go after all those "freeloaders" who refuse to buy their fair share of insurance.

There are plenty more examples from this forum.

Freeloaders are those who refuse to buy insurance and are NOT paying for the unfortunate.

So welfare recipients are all freeloaders?

 

[paulitician]

They'll likely settle on something like $12. Steady increases over time will get it up to $15 eventually. I know that really pisses greedy white Republican dude off, but it's probably gonna happen all across the country.