Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Nov 13, 2012, 10:17 PM   #176
Rodimus Prime
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlaskaMoose View Post
It still makes no difference how much money the Government can take from the rich, because there is not enough money to support Federal spending but for a few weeks.

What a lot of us don't understand is the following: the 1% we are referring to, even if they don't pay a high percentage of Income tax as the rest of us do, still pay a larger portion of cash than a lot of us combined. The reason why this is true is because they make a lot more money that we do. For example, lets say that a millionaire pays 10% of Income tax, while I, a barely rich person, pay 20%. In this case the millionaire is not paying as much as I do percentage-wise , but the total amount of cash he is adding to the total tax revenue is a lot larger than the total amount of cash I add to the total revenue.

Another example, lets say that we now have a flat tax across the board. This should be fair. Don't you think so? Lets make it a 10% flat income tax: you are a very rich person and earn $1,000 per year (I am keeping it simple). So, you drop $100.00 in the government coffers. Meanwhile I am a poor person and earn $10.00 per year. I drop ten cents in the government coffers.

See, what you are failing to understand is that the top 1% of tax payers is a very small group. So, the top 50% is paying most of the taxes, but the share of taxes paid by the 1% of tax payers on the top half, is around 20%.

Umm does not change it is not fair. no one is arguing that they already pay more in gross total (well most are)
What we are saying is they are not paying their fair share. They should be paying a larger precentage of their income as it comes out of disposable income. Cost of living is no linear with income.

Also it hurts them a lot less to pay a larger chunk as extra extra dollar they make a larger chunk of each next dollar goes to savings.

So again you do not under stand it.

Also have you notice how I have not said the problem can not be solved by just raising taxes. I made it clear we need to both raise taxes and cut spending. We need them both. What I do demand for is shared pain. If you are going to cut services then raise taxes and more so on the rich as they feel less pain for each service cut.
Rodimus Prime is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 2012, 11:22 PM   #177
AlaskaMoose
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Alaska
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodimus Prime View Post
Umm does not change it is not fair. no one is arguing that they already pay more in gross total (well most are)
What we are saying is they are not paying their fair share. They should be paying a larger precentage of their income as it comes out of disposable income. Cost of living is no linear with income.

Also it hurts them a lot less to pay a larger chunk as extra extra dollar they make a larger chunk of each next dollar goes to savings.

So again you do not under stand it.

Also have you notice how I have not said the problem can not be solved by just raising taxes. I made it clear we need to both raise taxes and cut spending. We need them both. What I do demand for is shared pain. If you are going to cut services then raise taxes and more so on the rich as they feel less pain for each service cut.
I understand very well, but perhaps you din't understand what I say. Maybe I was not clear. Add to total number of tax payer in the 1% bracket, and compare that number to the rest of tax payers in the top half. If you do that, then you will realize that just a few tax payers in the top half are paying 20% or the taxes.

That said, the main problem we face is overspending. So I don't totally disagree with you. Without spending cuts it does not matter how much tax can be collected from the top 1% by the Government. Our government can take all the money the top half earns and it still won't make a difference.

http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...e-numbers-2012
__________________
iMac, and MacBook Pro.
Canon.
AlaskaMoose is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2012, 06:06 AM   #178
leenak
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlaskaMoose View Post
I understand very well, but perhaps you din't understand what I say. Maybe I was not clear. Add to total number of tax payer in the 1% bracket, and compare that number to the rest of tax payers in the top half. If you do that, then you will realize that just a few tax payers in the top half are paying 20% or the taxes.

That said, the main problem we face is overspending. So I don't totally disagree with you. Without spending cuts it does not matter how much tax can be collected from the top 1% by the Government. Our government can take all the money the top half earns and it still won't make a difference.

http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...e-numbers-2012
The problem is that the overspending comes primarily from social security, Medicare and Medicaid. There are other things like military budgets as well. Honestly, we can't expect medical spending to go down unless we can cut some overhead. We need to increase social security deductions as well if we want to keep it. I do think we need to get rid of some tax cuts to bring in a bit more federal income and we have to look at ways to decrease our medical overhead.
leenak is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2012, 06:29 AM   #179
leenak
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlaskaMoose View Post
Another example, lets say that we now have a flat tax across the board. This should be fair. Don't you think so? Lets make it a 10% flat income tax: you are a very rich person and earn $1,000 per year (I am keeping it simple). So, you drop $100.00 in the government coffers. Meanwhile I am a poor person and earn $10.00 per year. I drop ten cents in the government coffers.
The thing here is that the guy with $1,000/year is paying 10% while the guy making $10/year is paying 20%. So instead of having $200.20 like you should, you have $100.20. Also that 20 cents hurts the poor person than the $200 would for the rich person. It is easy to see why our country is hurting with such a mentality. Also, I agree that spending cuts need to take place as well.
leenak is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2012, 10:01 AM   #180
bruinsrme
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky-Mac View Post
under obamacare, these people who aren't currently paying anything for getting medical services, they'll have to buy insurance to help pay for their bill instead of just getting a free ride
or pay a smaller fine
bruinsrme is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2012, 11:17 AM   #181
Macky-Mac
macrumors 68020
 
Macky-Mac's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by bruinsrme View Post
or pay a smaller fine
even those will contribute something instead of nothing
Macky-Mac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2012, 11:22 AM   #182
splitpea
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Among the starlings
Quote:
Originally Posted by leenak View Post
Honestly, we can't expect medical spending to go down unless we can cut some overhead
The problem is that medicine is a little counterintuitive in that regard.

If we spend more up front to make preventative and primary care inexpensive out-of-pocket and widely available, then we spend less in the long run on handling advanced and less-inexpensively-treatable conditions or paying for people who don't have insurance to get their strep throat treated at the emergency room.

There was an article a little while ago about how much less expensive it is even to send a doctor on home visits every 2 weeks to clip the toenails of elderly people who aren't flexible and strong enough to do it themselves, than to treat a fractured hip resulting from a toenail that caught on a rug, or a gangrenous foot resulting from an ingrown toenail on a diabetic patient.

But because we don't have universal health care here, a lot of people go years between basic doctor visits, and conditions like diabetes, treatable cancers, heart disease and high blood pressure are allowed to grow from problems that can be cured early or managed by diet or cheap OTC medicine such as baby aspirin, to conditions requiring hospitalization, surgery, end expensive emergency room care.
__________________
What's the point of a sig showing the system I owned in 2006?
splitpea is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2012, 11:29 AM   #183
jnpy!$4g3cwk
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by leenak View Post
The problem is that the overspending comes primarily from social security, Medicare and Medicaid. There are other things like military budgets as well. Honestly, we can't expect medical spending to go down unless we can cut some overhead. We need to increase social security deductions as well if we want to keep it. I do think we need to get rid of some tax cuts to bring in a bit more federal income and we have to look at ways to decrease our medical overhead.
Actually, the Social Security Trust Fund is around $2.5 Trillion.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/assets.gif




Seriously, I should live so long to see it exhausted. But, even if I do, I would accept some reduction in benefits at that time. Social Security is not "the problem", even if it is "a problem" for pure Libertarians.

You are correct that Medicare and Medicaid are a problem. This brings us back to the healthcare issue. Again.

Last edited by jnpy!$4g3cwk; Nov 14, 2012 at 11:35 AM. Reason: Image not showing up for some reason, typo
jnpy!$4g3cwk is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2012, 02:08 PM   #184
hulugu
macrumors 68000
 
hulugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: the faraway towns
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlaskaMoose View Post
What happens in this case is that since Papa John's is not not longer selling a lot of pizzas because of the boycott, he has to reduce the number of work hours for the employees. No work, no take-home money.
You're making the same point scottness did and as I said, you're both right in the immediate, but that's how customers can communicate with the company in a way that gets sharper attention. Employees should feel free to lobby for their own benefits, but any collective or individual action comes with the same risks.

So, yes, a short-term boycott could result in less money for the employees, but it would also communicate to the company that customers are comfortable with a small price increase to ensure healthcare for the local pizza guy. Moreover, this highlights a problem with modern capitalism: if I buy fewer Papa Johns pizzas, I hurt the employees, but if I buy more pizzas they probably won't get a pay raise.
__________________
I look like a soldier; I feel like a thief
hulugu is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2012, 02:19 PM   #185
leenak
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by jnpy!$4g3cwk View Post
Actually, the Social Security Trust Fund is around $2.5 Trillion.

Seriously, I should live so long to see it exhausted. But, even if I do, I would accept some reduction in benefits at that time. Social Security is not "the problem", even if it is "a problem" for pure Libertarians.

You are correct that Medicare and Medicaid are a problem. This brings us back to the healthcare issue. Again.
I was basing the SS comment on something I read that said the biggest contributers to the government spending in social programs was medicare, medicaid and SS. Now if it comes out of a different fund, then that wasn't mentioned.
leenak is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2012, 07:50 PM   #186
Peace
macrumors P6
 
Peace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Space--The ONLY Frontier
Papa Johns isn't the only company weaseling it's way out.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2122412.html

John Metz, Denny's Franchisee And Hurricane Grill & Wings Owner, Imposes Surcharge For Obamacare
__________________
Throw us one Russell---John Fox Super Bowl 48
Peace is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2012, 08:05 PM   #187
citizenzen
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peace View Post
Papa Johns isn't the only company weaseling it's way out.
From the article ...

Quote:
"If I leave the prices the same, but say on the menu that there is a 5 percent surcharge for Obamacare, customers have two choices. They can either pay it and tip 15 or 20 percent, or if they really feel so inclined, they can reduce the amount of tip they give to the server, who is the primary beneficiary of Obamacare," Metz told The Huffington Post. "Although it may sound terrible that I'm doing this, it's the only alternative. I've got to pass the cost on to the consumer."
How nice of him to put the onus of this on his wait staff.

The man sounds like a royal douchebag.
citizenzen is online now   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2012, 09:31 PM   #188
AlaskaMoose
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Alaska
Quote:
Originally Posted by jnpy!$4g3cwk View Post
Actually, the Social Security Trust Fund is around $2.5 Trillion.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/assets.gif

Image


Seriously, I should live so long to see it exhausted. But, even if I do, I would accept some reduction in benefits at that time. Social Security is not "the problem", even if it is "a problem" for pure Libertarians.

You are correct that Medicare and Medicaid are a problem. This brings us back to the healthcare issue. Again.
I have no idea if the plan outlined in this article by the Heritage Foundation is a good one or not, but at least it's worth a look, at least the area near the end of the article that has a list of departments the foundation recommends to be cut:
http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...federal-budget

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by hulugu View Post
You're making the same point scottness did and as I said, you're both right in the immediate, but that's how customers can communicate with the company in a way that gets sharper attention. Employees should feel free to lobby for their own benefits, but any collective or individual action comes with the same risks.

So, yes, a short-term boycott could result in less money for the employees, but it would also communicate to the company that customers are comfortable with a small price increase to ensure healthcare for the local pizza guy. Moreover, this highlights a problem with modern capitalism: if I buy fewer Papa Johns pizzas, I hurt the employees, but if I buy more pizzas they probably won't get a pay raise.
Perhaps you are right, but in my view this is not the best time for boycotts because of the high rate of unemployment. Putting such pressure on a company only hurts the employees and the generation of tax revenue. All the company would do is to schedule shorter work shifts.
__________________
iMac, and MacBook Pro.
Canon.
AlaskaMoose is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2012, 09:32 PM   #189
Rodimus Prime
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peace View Post
Papa Johns isn't the only company weaseling it's way out.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2122412.html

John Metz, Denny's Franchisee And Hurricane Grill & Wings Owner, Imposes Surcharge For Obamacare
it is more going to back fire. They could speak to their electric officials and those officals can being hell down on that guy.

He is basicly saying I already make a lot of money and I want more. You all can suffer for it.
Rodimus Prime is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2012, 09:42 PM   #190
LethalWolfe
macrumors Demi-God
 
LethalWolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenzen View Post
From the article ...



How nice of him to put the onus of this on his wait staff.

The man sounds like a royal douchebag.
If people like him paid their staff enough and/or provided healthcare benefits in the first place Obamacare probably wouldn't have come to fruition.
__________________
Looking For Lenny - documentary about comedian Lenny Bruce's timeless impact on stand-up comedy & Free Speech.
Netflix, iTunes, Amazon
LethalWolfe is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2012, 09:44 PM   #191
robanga
macrumors 68000
 
robanga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oregon
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peace View Post
Papa Johns isn't the only company weaseling it's way out.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2122412.html

John Metz, Denny's Franchisee And Hurricane Grill & Wings Owner, Imposes Surcharge For Obamacare
Political stupidity - 5% surcharge? Maybe he should publish his entire books/ P&L statement for his customer's to read online. If his labor costs go up he and he can't meet his minimal acceptable profitability he should raise prices. Making a political statement is opening him up to mockery and he is going to get plenty of it.
__________________
Soli Deo gloria
robanga is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2012, 11:58 PM   #192
redshift1
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
I imagine the marketing depts for these knuckleheads are thrilled to no end. Bonuses are usually tied to sales performance and when your CEO is alienating 2-3% of your customer base (or more) then guess who pays.

There is no way publicity like this helps sales... unless of course you use Paul Ryan marathon calculator or The Fox News polling organ ... Rasmussen.

.
redshift1 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 15, 2012, 04:55 AM   #193
sim667
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryPot View Post
Is that margin taking into account people working for selling the product? Ads? Rentals?

I agree, 15 isn't that much, but when you put it from a bigger perspective, those 15 can represent a lot of money in an economy.
But how much more does it cost them when workers are off for longer periods of time ill because they cant afford healthcare?

I guess they just get fired in that case?

A prime reason why I'd rather be poor anywhere else in the world over america.
__________________
Mac Pro, Macbook Pro, G4 Powerbook, iPad 4, iPhone 5, 2X TV, Nikon D200, ACSP Trained - Photography and Mac tech
Music and UK festival Blog
sim667 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 15, 2012, 07:45 AM   #194
senseless
macrumors 65816
 
senseless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Why not just reduce the portion sizes, if they don't want to raise prices? Americans eat too much anyway.
senseless is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 15, 2012, 08:26 AM   #195
ugahairydawgs
macrumors 68020
 
ugahairydawgs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodimus Prime View Post
it is more going to back fire. They could speak to their electric officials and those officals can being hell down on that guy.

He is basicly saying I already make a lot of money and I want more. You all can suffer for it.
Maybe you missed it, so I'll highlight the key passage.

Quote:
"But to pay $5,000 per employee would cost us $175,000 per restaurant, and unfortunately, most of our restaurants don't make $175,000 a year. I can't afford it."
But let's try it your way. Let's keep folks at the right amount of hours, eat up the vast majority of profits for a location, and put all the workers on the street when the restaurant eventually closes. Seems like a great idea.

Last edited by ugahairydawgs; Nov 15, 2012 at 08:42 AM.
ugahairydawgs is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 15, 2012, 08:30 AM   #196
zioxide
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Massachusetts
Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenzen View Post
From the article ...



How nice of him to put the onus of this on his wait staff.

The man sounds like a royal douchebag.
Nice. Lets reduce the "tip" for the waitress who's making $2.63 an hour, lives on her tips, and doesn't see a single pay check due to taxes.

**** that guy. I have no words for people like this. Selfish pigs.
zioxide is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 15, 2012, 08:33 AM   #197
yg17
macrumors G5
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: St. Louis, MO
Dennys, Papa Johns, Applebees.

No real loss there. Every single location in the US could close and I wouldn't miss them.

The last two times I ate at Denny's, I got food poisoning (and one of those times, as a bonus, I got proselytized to by a preacher who Denny's let go table to table preaching his BS). Pizza Hut is the best of the crappy chain pizzas. And I've never had a decent meal at Applebees.

Wake me up when a restaurant chain that actually makes decent food starts pulling this nonsense.
__________________
Barack Obama is not a foreign born, brown skinned, anti-war socialist who gives away healthcare. You're thinking of Jesus.
yg17 is online now   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 15, 2012, 08:41 AM   #198
ugahairydawgs
macrumors 68020
 
ugahairydawgs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by yg17 View Post
Dennys, Papa Johns, Applebees.

No real loss there. Every single location in the US could close and I wouldn't miss them.

The last two times I ate at Denny's, I got food poisoning (and one of those times, as a bonus, I got proselytized to by a preacher who Denny's let go table to table preaching his BS). Pizza Hut is the best of the crappy chain pizzas. And I've never had a decent meal at Applebees.

Wake me up when a restaurant chain that actually makes decent food starts pulling this nonsense.
Why exactly is it "nonsense"? People start dictating to you how you have to spend your personal money and it would offend you too. Business owners are no different.

Everybody likes to look at this in a vacuum. They think that just because someone is running a business they automatically have a truck load of money sitting off to the side somewhere in order to just count when they get bored. Most businesses barely make enough to get by (especially in today's economic climate) and to have the government come in and force them to start taking on additional expenses is just unrealistic in a lot of cases.

This outrage by many some would balk at this is just silly. Stop being so judgmental when you decide how someone else should spend their money.
ugahairydawgs is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 15, 2012, 08:48 AM   #199
citizenzen
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by ugahairydawgs View Post
Maybe you missed it, so I'll highlight the key passage.
Quote:
"But to pay $5,000 per employee would cost us $175,000 per restaurant, and unfortunately, most of our restaurants don't make $175,000 a year. I can't afford it."
This number needs far more explanation and shouldn't accepted on face value.

Surely his average restaurant makes far more than $175,000 a year. Or else it could never survive, pay it's lease, consumables, or salaries in the first place.
citizenzen is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 15, 2012, 08:49 AM   #200
ugahairydawgs
macrumors 68020
 
ugahairydawgs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenzen View Post
This number needs far more explanation and shouldn't accepted on face value.

Surely his average restaurant makes far more than $175,000 a year. Or else it could never survive, pay it's lease, consumables, or salaries in the first place.
The assumption would be that the net profit, not gross receipts, would be <$175k
ugahairydawgs is offline   0 Reply With Quote


Reply
MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:35 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC