NC tax changes that will hit us all

[Maddog1956]

However I still want you to answer how the study has anything to do with the topic "NC Tax Changes".

For the third and final time, I wasn't making an argument for/against the proposition. I was simply responding to the thread that immediately went to the hyper-emotional response of 'those evil rich folks stealing from the poor again'. There is a long, documented series where I've addressed this.

If you need another "study" to show that poor are really stealing from the rich instead, use this one, it might be more believable than the Heritage one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Hood

[Maddog1956]

No, I'm no old man. I'm definitely not an angry, mud-slinging 57 YO who thinks that government is the way to save 'victims'. I'm just a green, 31 YO who thinks there's might be a better path of opportunity for those who "didn't win the womb lottery."

Welfare: The biggest hoax pulled on poor in the history of the United States.

And I assume your "better path" is to tax the "womb lottery losers" more and to tax the "womb lottery winners" less. Thanks, but no thanks, tried, failed!

Reducing income tax via increasing sales tax >>>> 2 >>>> welfare, my what leap.

[HeffnerIV]

No, I'm no old man. I'm definitely not an angry, mud-slinging 57 YO who thinks that government is the way to save 'victims'. I'm just a green, 31 YO who thinks there's might be a better path of opportunity for those who "didn't win the womb lottery."

Welfare: The biggest hoax pulled on poor in the history of the United States.

And I assume your "better path" is to tax the "womb lottery losers" more and to tax the "womb lottery winners" less. Thanks, but no thanks, tried, failed!

Reducing income tax via increasing sales tax >>>> 2 >>>> welfare, my what leap.

How can you tax folks that pay no federal income taxes, less? More deductions? Okay, so 0-1=-1, right? Don't we already have that with the EITC (another form of welfare). Tell you what, why don't we eliminate all deductions and everyone just pays their rate? Since you're all so worried about Mitt Romney's ETR, why don't we just eliminate all of his deductions?

More class warfare. They sure play you people like puppets. Just pent you against your neighbor, pass out the goodies, watch you do their bidding, then keep electing them.

I'm not here advocating for the rich or poor. My argument is that they're both getting too many special treatments from the government. It's time for self-responsibility.

[StumpyCulbreath]

If I had inherited a business and had everything given to me, I'd feel the same way.

[HeffnerIV]

If I had inherited a business and had everything given to me, I'd feel the same way.

Yeah, I really wanted my Dad to pass in his 50's so I could inherit his landscaping business. You know we make big bucks and all.

I guess there's nothing off-limits when you're a liberal.

[Maddog1956]

Tell you what, why don't we eliminate all deductions and everyone just pays their rate? Since you're all so worried about Mitt Romney's ETR, why don't we just eliminate all of his deductions?

Something we can agree on. Now that the Rep's have control the NC house and governor office why don't we see a flat tax rate. No tax on the first 30k and then flat after that, no deductions. NC rep's could pass it in one week if they really wanted it.

Instead they pass a "pass it on down tax" plan.

[HeffnerIV]

Tell you what, why don't we eliminate all deductions and everyone just pays their rate? Since you're all so worried about Mitt Romney's ETR, why don't we just eliminate all of his deductions?

Something we can agree on. Now that the Rep's have control the NC house and governor office why don't we see a flat tax rate. No tax on the first 30k and then flat after that, no deductions. NC rep's could pass it in one week if they really wanted it.

Instead they pass a "pass it on down tax" plan.

Because they, like everyone else, like to use the tax code to manipulate the market and pick winners/losers. This is why I've been asking you to read the tread. I'm for government getting out of the tax games. If we really want to be fair, let everyone fight it out in a free market and contribute something equally commiserate with their income.

[StumpyCulbreath]

Heffner, sorry things happened to you that way, and apologies for offending you. I understand why you're so pissed off at the world.

[HeffnerIV]

Heffner, sorry things happened to you that way, and apologies for offending you. I understand why you're so pissed off at the world.

I appreciate your apology, but I'm not pissed at the world. I'm just tired of always being told that Americans aren't doing enough for the poor while the goalposts are continually moved back and their benefits increase. I think that struggle can be a good thing. We need a little more 'hunger' in the country.

[McLeansvilleAppFan]

Once again, predictably, you've chosen the absolute worst situations you could find. How about all those business that operate each day union free, who never blow up? I bet my example outnumbers yours!

People have free will to work where they wish, for whomever they wish, for as much money as they agree. They also have the self-responsibility to work in a place that they feel safe. See the common theme here? Self-Responsibility!

What about all the wage theft, injuries that are not the extreme cases, but still injuries. The illegal firings. I could make a pretty long list. Yes, there are employers that are decent, how many and what percentage-I doubt as high as you would think.

Your idea is a nice idea, but to think that all the laws are written to really give all this free will is a bit of a stretch. The laws are written in ways that really keep that from happening, partly because the laws involving workplace are not enforced as they once were. How many employers go to jail for wage theft. It is still theft, but it is hardly enforced. One example of how all this fairness is not really fair and the deck is stacked.

Should employers not be able to dismiss anyone they don't want working at their PRIVATE organization, for any reason?

Short answer - No

Long answer - If you don't want to deal with labor laws then don't go beyond a 1 person operation.

[McLeansvilleAppFan]

Heffner, sorry things happened to you that way, and apologies for offending you. I understand why you're so pissed off at the world.

I appreciate your apology, but I'm not pissed at the world. I'm just tired of always being told that Americans aren't doing enough for the poor while the goalposts are continually moved back and their benefits increase. I think that struggle can be a good thing. We need a little more 'hunger' in the country.

Do you have any idea how the money in this country has moved over the last few decades from working and middle class families to the richer side. To even think the poor are getting some great deal is laughable.

[HeffnerIV]

Once again, predictably, you've chosen the absolute worst situations you could find. How about all those business that operate each day union free, who never blow up? I bet my example outnumbers yours!

People have free will to work where they wish, for whomever they wish, for as much money as they agree. They also have the self-responsibility to work in a place that they feel safe. See the common theme here? Self-Responsibility!

What about all the wage theft, injuries that are not the extreme cases, but still injuries. The illegal firings. I could make a pretty long list. Yes, there are employers that are decent, how many and what percentage-I doubt as high as you would think.

Your idea is a nice idea, but to think that all the laws are written to really give all this free will is a bit of a stretch. The laws are written in ways that really keep that from happening, partly because the laws involving workplace are not enforced as they once were. How many employers go to jail for wage theft. It is still theft, but it is hardly enforced. One example of how all this fairness is not really fair and the deck is stacked.

Should employers not be able to dismiss anyone they don't want working at their PRIVATE organization, for any reason?

Short answer - No

Long answer - If you don't want to deal with labor laws then don't go beyond a 1 person operation.

Dude, you do realize that you're bordering awfully close to fascism, right? Essentially, you're saying that should I get government to legislate it, I could tell you how to treat you in your own home.

[McLeansvilleAppFan]

Once again, predictably, you've chosen the absolute worst situations you could find. How about all those business that operate each day union free, who never blow up? I bet my example outnumbers yours!

People have free will to work where they wish, for whomever they wish, for as much money as they agree. They also have the self-responsibility to work in a place that they feel safe. See the common theme here? Self-Responsibility!

What about all the wage theft, injuries that are not the extreme cases, but still injuries. The illegal firings. I could make a pretty long list. Yes, there are employers that are decent, how many and what percentage-I doubt as high as you would think.

Your idea is a nice idea, but to think that all the laws are written to really give all this free will is a bit of a stretch. The laws are written in ways that really keep that from happening, partly because the laws involving workplace are not enforced as they once were. How many employers go to jail for wage theft. It is still theft, but it is hardly enforced. One example of how all this fairness is not really fair and the deck is stacked.

Should employers not be able to dismiss anyone they don't want working at their PRIVATE organization, for any reason?

Short answer - No

Long answer - If you don't want to deal with labor laws then don't go beyond a 1 person operation.

Dude, you do realize that you're bordering awfully close to fascism, right? Essentially, you're saying that should I get government to legislate it, I could tell you how to treat you in your own home.

Actually a fascist is very pro-nationalist and pro-corportist. I am neither. The US Constitution give Congress the right to regulate commerce. Part of that regulation is the ability to set certain standards such as min. wage, safety, and laws about firing and such. You can't fire for a few things such as race. And I don't think you should be able to fire someone that has been working for you for years just because you would like. I agree 100% with those laws and which they were stronger.

[HeffnerIV]

Interstate commerce, not employee relations. Article one, section eight. What the civil rights act did was try to outlaw racism. Is that not a violation of the first amendment? Look, the government shouldn't regulate my ethics and morality as an employer. Being an ignorant racist is not against the law, nor should it be.

[App91]

Heff, thanks for fighting the good fight. This illustration shows that we have really big problems in this world. Some think that it is ok to have confiscatory tax codes, that the gov't should be entitled to ones earnings and that gov't is the best one to decide who gets it.

Have you ever bounced a rubber ball against a wall? What happens?

[appdaze]

1000 views, 54 posts (besides this one) and only about 2-3 of them are about the OP article. Gotta love the MMB.