• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

My right to bear arms is under fire right now.

That having a higher tax rate does not automatically mean bad things.

People read what they want to into statistics, but statistics can never show causation. When you say:

"98% of serial killers like ketchup on their fries," that makes you wonder if they really see ketchup as causation
Click to expand...

Someone, either you or the person you talk about, is totally misunderstanding statistics.
 
You are the Michael Jordan of picking out only the parts of communication you choose to respond to, Nova. I have a dog's stapled up belly to clean. I'm out for a while.
 
I addressed your post. I just reread it and I'm not aware of anything that I missed.

The past, with higher tax rates and apparently better economies, suggest a correlation. Certainly higher tax rates doesn't cause a better economy, but the correlation puts to rest the notion that higher tax rates must mean a worse economy. I'm not sure where Starsevol's numbers to get at that 43% come from as they never cited any sources, so I can only go by the information that I have.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=456

Which is, tax rates are lower than they've been for decades and the economy is still floundering. In fact, the crash began while tax rates were very, very low.

So low tax rates also does not always mean a better economy.

The reason I brought it up was the notion put forth about how 'high' taxes are. Starsevol talked about 'fees' and other things, but was very non-specific, and again, did not cite anything, so I have no idea what to do with that information.

So, finally, tax rates were higher when times were better. Lower tax rates has not made anything better.

The only thing left, if you would like to continue, is to either explain in more detail where I claimed that high tax rates cause things to get better, or acknowledge that I did not say that any more than the statistic "98% of serial killers like ketchup on their fries" says that ketchup causes serial killers.
 
Nova_C said:
I addressed your post. I just reread it and I'm not aware of anything that I missed.

The past, with higher tax rates and apparently better economies, suggest a correlation. Certainly higher tax rates doesn't cause a better economy, but the correlation puts to rest the notion that higher tax rates must mean a worse economy. I'm not sure where Starsevol's numbers to get at that 43% come from as they never cited any sources, so I can only go by the information that I have.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=456

Which is, tax rates are lower than they've been for decades and the economy is still floundering. In fact, the crash began while tax rates were very, very low.

So low tax rates also does not always mean a better economy.

The reason I brought it up was the notion put forth about how 'high' taxes are. Starsevol talked about 'fees' and other things, but was very non-specific, and again, did not cite anything, so I have no idea what to do with that information.

So, finally, tax rates were higher when times were better. Lower tax rates has not made anything better.

The only thing left, if you would like to continue, is to either explain in more detail where I claimed that high tax rates cause things to get better, or acknowledge that I did not say that any more than the statistic "98% of serial killers like ketchup on their fries" says that ketchup causes serial killers.
Click to expand...

First, I corrected myself when I said that depending on tax bracket, now taxes are 32-40% of every dollar earned by someone who works for a living. It is not 43%. I googled it and found out exactly what the percentage is.

Fees are charged now, that weren't before. I gave you the example of the "911" fee that amounts to 7-8% additional I am forced to pay for a $35 Virgin top-up card for my phone.
There are hidden fees in gasoline, phone bills, utility bills, insurance bills...many due to 911. My insurance company has a special "insurance protection against terrorist damage" fee that is automatically charged to my business. I need to specifically opt out of it every year but how many people don't even know it exists?
For the first time EVER in my state, you need to pay for a license to go clamming. New taxes, licenses and fees are being introduced or raised, many due to 911. Fact of life here.
Of course if you lived here you would know that......
 
The "911" fee on a phone is for the 9-1-1 operator services. Like, when there's an emergency. My phone had that too, when I lived in a community with 9-1-1.

I don't think it has anything to do with terrorism.

And insurance fees and whatnot are not the purview of the government. How is it the government's fault when a company tries to gouge you? I don't get it.

PS. Can you link that 32-40% stuff? I'd like to read it, please. :)
 
Nova_C said:
The "911" fee on a phone is for the 9-1-1 operator services. Like, when there's an emergency. My phone had that too, when I lived in a community with 9-1-1.

I don't think it has anything to do with terrorism.

And insurance fees and whatnot are not the purview of the government. How is it the government's fault when a company tries to gouge you? I don't get it.

PS. Can you link that 32-40% stuff? I'd like to read it, please. :)
Click to expand...

Actually, I believe you are wrong on your first statement. The 911 fee I am refering to has to do with homeland security, which came about due to 911.

Extra fees are a tax. That has nothing to do with a huge premium, a fee has to do with an added tax that is passed on. It is a tax on a service, due to that service having more taxes and expenses.

As far as the other...http://www.babeled.com/2009/04/22/how-much-do-you-really-pay-in-taxes/
 
starsevol said:
Actually, I believe you are wrong on your first statement. The 911 fee I am refering to has to do with homeland security, which came about due to 911.

Extra fees are a tax. That has nothing to do with a huge premium, a fee has to do with an added tax that is passed on. It is a tax on a service, due to that service having more taxes and expenses.

As far as the other...http://www.babeled.com/2009/04/22/how-much-do-you-really-pay-in-taxes/
Click to expand...

Heh, no. Like I said, I get 911 fees. They are for 911 services. As in, when you dial 9-1-1 on your phone.

This FAQ is for Texas, but it is relevant even if you don't live in Texas.

So you are claiming that every time a company charges a 'fee' it is because the government is taxing them in a new way? Prove it, because that's absolutely ridiculous.
 
And that article is including taxes paid by companies and corporations on their revenue as part of the individual's tax burden? I have one response to that:

AHHHHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!

That's awesome. :)
 
Oh, whoops. My last post was confused with the other thread. Nanci is probably thinking I've gone mad. :p

Anyway, I guess I should ask, which subject are you referring to, Airenlow?

There's been a few in this thread.
 
Oh. Okay. Well, you can ask them what they think, then. Lots of varying opinions. That's an old thread, though. That forum has so many members that if a thread isn't posted to at least every couple hours, it disappears from the first page of whatever subforum you're on. Some threads get several posts per minute. It's nuts.
 
Nova_C said:
So you are claiming that every time a company charges a 'fee' it is because the government is taxing them in a new way? Prove it, because that's absolutely ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Most of the time, yes, I believe that is true. It's commonly known as a "pass through tax" in that a company is levied a fee, tax, license, permit, or some sort of regulation demanding compliance that some government action causes an increase in operating expenses of the company. So they pass that additional cost of doing business through to the consumer. It can either be overtly itemized, such as a "911 fee", or covertly done via a cost increase of the merchandise or service. Heck, just simple corporate income taxes have to be figured into overhead expenses, which goes into the cost of merchandise or services. I believe that at the bottom of all increases in costs you will usually find government as being the cause of the increase via the vehicles mentioned above. Of course, then there is inflation which raises prices across the board. And who, pray tell, do you believe is behind that?

Ridiculous? How many businesses have you run? In America? If any, did you pay any attention to your accountant's reports of expenditures?

Prove it? Sorry, not our job. :rolleyes:
 
Rich Z said:
Most of the time, yes, I believe that is true. It's commonly known as a "pass through tax" in that a company is levied a fee, tax, license, permit, or some sort of regulation demanding compliance that some government action causes an increase in operating expenses of the company. So they pass that additional cost of doing business through to the consumer. It can either be overtly itemized, such as a "911 fee", or covertly done via a cost increase of the merchandise or service. Heck, just simple corporate income taxes have to be figured into overhead expenses, which goes into the cost of merchandise or services. I believe that at the bottom of all increases in costs you will usually find government as being the cause of the increase via the vehicles mentioned above. Of course, then there is inflation which raises prices across the board. And who, pray tell, do you believe is behind that?

Ridiculous? How many businesses have you run? In America? If any, did you pay any attention to your accountant's reports of expenditures?

Prove it? Sorry, not our job. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Thanks Rich, Survivor was coming on, I had dishes to do, and I was distracted. That pretty much sums it up though.
I have run a retail business for 25 years. The last 4 years have been devestating and most likely we will be closing our doors sometime this year.

My husband and I TOGETHER earn between 20-30k a year, depending on the year. In property tax alone we pay $7200.00.
 
Not sure if this side-topic has since died off, but here's my .02 on Nova "not getting it" because he's Canadian.. and yes, I'm still surprised this is relevant to keep bringing up.

Some of you do the same thing in every thread, that you're accusing Nova of. Look at your "handout with a cellphone" videos. To you (figuratively), the environment of a person in those videos are probably as foreign as Baghdad (and Canada), and yet you feel obliged to impose your experience on theirs, by saying that they lack the understanding of their own experience/environment that's needed to succeed. Some of you feel that you have the insight to tell others how to take advantage of what YOU feel they should take advantage of, regardless of whether it was a personal experience for you or not. And I don't ever see anyone defending their political/cultural beliefs, simply because of their (assumed) geographic and social differences. So why is this now fair game to bring up about Nova?

Also, look at our country's "foreign affairs".. is it not an unfair intrusion of another culture/society to dictate "American" principles for those in other countries? Again, I don't/haven't seen anyone protesting our involvement when it comes to speaking on issues of other countries, when it comes to Americans doing the speaking. So, I would think, for people so concerned with Nova speaking on the politics of other countries, that you all might be a fan of our president's approach to foreign policy, which is exactly what you guys are recommending for Nova. Which is basically "mind your own business". If it's fair for that conversation, it should be fair for this one too. Otherwise, it's hypocritical to attack his views based on him residing in Canada, when you yourselves feel free to openly discuss/critique/attack issues that affect other countries, when you have also never lived there.

Bottom line, we are all a product of our circumstance/environment. Our location, culture, etc.., these are all factors in our lives that make us who we are, that are completely outside of our control. And in more than one way, we will all be a victim of that circumstance. Especially if we restrict ourselves to only learning from what that specific environment offers. So as a part of human growth/development, it's really necessary that we learn about other environments/politics/cultures/etc.. in order to apply what works with others into our own lives to be successful. Being a part of one environment doesn't negate our responsibility to grow beyond that environment. It's a stepping stone to learn and and grow. That's why we have people in America who dedicate their lives fighting for the rights of people that may not ever live in America. Are they wrong for that? Because under the guidelines that we won't speak on issues outside of our own environment, we'd limit most of the conversations that come up on this site.

I tend to believe as I always have with these discussions. It's not about objectivity, it's about outnumbering someone with an opinion, and using every attack in the book to discredit them. Which is just how it would be of some of you were on other sites. There are (many) people in America who would agree with Nova, that would find some of the "American" postings in here ridiculous. A majority of the voting public, in fact. So would they be challenged for their nationality in the same way that Nova is, or would you guys listen to them because they're US citizens?.. I'm thinking that a new form of attack would take place, and Nova being Canadian would take a backseat. So when I think about that perspective, I think it's obvious that Nova challenging another persons beliefs is what irritates 'some'. Not at all that he's Canadian. That's just the crutch in case the debate goes south.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top