| reply to moonpuppy
Re: O.k. all liberals..... Uh, because Bush grew gov't more in the first 4 years of his administration than Clinton did in 8 with record deficit spending.
Bush never saw a spending bill he didn't like and someone, sometime has to pay the bill for Bush's massive gov't expansion.
You would call liberals tax and spenders.
I guess that would make Bush a spend and spender. |
|
| said by Spendandspender :
Bush never saw a spending bill he didn't like and someone, sometime has to pay the bill for Bush's massive gov't expansion. Democrats have had congress for a couple of years now. What spending cutbacks have they made?
--
What's certain about Darwinism is that it would take less time for (1) a single-celled organism to evolve into a human being through mutation and natural selection than for (2) Darwinists to admit they have no proof of (1) - Ann Coulter |
|
| reply to Spendandspender
said by Spendandspender :
...I guess that would make Bush a spend and spender.
You mean borrower and spender... |
|
|
|
| reply to Spendandspender
said by Spendandspender :
Uh, because Bush grew gov't more in the first 4 years of his administration than Clinton did in 8 with record deficit spending.
Bush never saw a spending bill he didn't like and someone, sometime has to pay the bill for Bush's massive gov't expansion.
You would call liberals tax and spenders.
I guess that would make Bush a spend and spender.
But that still doesn't explain the reason to tax the internet. Taxes on the internet should be used to make the internet better, not to pay for something else. Gas taxes need to be spent on transportation, cigarette taxes on health care, etc. |
|
| I would argue that tobacco taxes should be spent on getting people to stop using tobacco.
There is something very wrong when you turn a 'vice' or 'sin' into a revenue stream since your supposed goal is stopping that sin/vice. When it is a revenue stream, the government has an interest in seeing more people with that vice instead of less.
100% of all sin taxes should go to stopping that 'sin'. No more sin, no more tax, and nothing loses on a budget if that money dries up. |
|
| said by justaguy :
I would argue that tobacco taxes should be spent on getting people to stop using tobacco.
There is something very wrong when you turn a 'vice' or 'sin' into a revenue stream since your supposed goal is stopping that sin/vice. When it is a revenue stream, the government has an interest in seeing more people with that vice instead of less.
100% of all sin taxes should go to stopping that 'sin'. No more sin, no more tax, and nothing loses on a budget if that money dries up.
Why tax it when you can ban it?
If smoking is so bad, then why not ban it? Instead liberals use it as an excuse to get more money out of the public.
Alcohol kills when people drink and drive. Why not ban it? Nope, need money for other stuff and they can't raise income taxes without being voted out of office.
It's funny that the same morons in California want to ban smoking but want to make marijuana legal.  |
|
| reply to footballdude
They increased the minimum wage!! Oh wait, I got nothing. |
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | said by imanogre:They increased the minimum wage!! Oh wait, I got nothing. Of course that doesn't help those making that wage at all, as the end result is less jobs at minimum wage.
If it was up to me, I would make money earned at minimum wage exempt from all withholding whatsoever. That would provide an immediate wage boost to minimum wage earners without screwing over those who employ them.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
| said by pnh102:If it was up to me, I would make money earned at minimum wage exempt from all withholding whatsoever. That would provide an immediate wage boost to minimum wage earners without screwing over those who employ them. What would be the incentive to pay people more? |
|
Reviews:
 ·AT&T Southeast
| reply to imanogre
Sure you did. You get less stuff for your money now because you're money is worth less. Isn't that great! Oh, and if you're one of the really lucky people, you lost your job because some businesses couldn't afford to pay everyone making that wage more money! Yay!!! Happy Day! Hell lets make minimum wage $20/hour so everyone can be in the poor house except the hyper rich such as Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Barak Obama while we listen to them tell everyone they "know the plight of the poor"! LOL |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | reply to moonpuppy
said by moonpuppy:What would be the incentive to pay people more? There is no incentive. Which is why every minimum wage hike results in the loss of jobs which pay at that level. However, removing withholding doesn't cost an employer anything, and it puts more money into a worker's pocket immediately.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
| said by pnh102:There is no incentive. Which is why every minimum wage hike results in the loss of jobs which pay at that level. However, removing withholding doesn't cost an employer anything, and it puts more money into a worker's pocket immediately. Does that worker still owe taxes? My guess that they would in many cases but I doubt many would save for taxes. |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | said by moonpuppy:Does that worker still owe taxes? My guess that they would in many cases but I doubt many would save for taxes. I don't think any wages earned at minimum wage should be subject to any taxes. Just make the first (whatever the hourly minimum wage is) * 8 hours * 5 days * 52 weeks of money completely untaxed for everyone.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
| Thats the way it already is...People who make less than $15,000 a year don't pay any federal income taxes... $7.25*8*5*52 = wait for it... $15080 |
|
| reply to pnh102
said by pnh102:said by moonpuppy:Does that worker still owe taxes? My guess that they would in many cases but I doubt many would save for taxes. I don't think any wages earned at minimum wage should be subject to any taxes. Just make the first (whatever the hourly minimum wage is) * 8 hours * 5 days * 52 weeks of money completely untaxed for everyone. Here is my point.
If it costs less for an employer to pay minimum wage and not do withholding, what incentive does that employer have to raise the salary of a good worker IF it will cost him more? |
|
1 edit | reply to pnh102
Wrong. Every increase in minimum wage has resulted in an increase in jobs. |
|
