Right.
Should all workers get this?
Or are you going to post your commie language again?
Trump to Deliver One of Biggest Tax Cuts Since Reagan
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
Right.
Should all workers get this?
Or are you going to post your commie language again?
Should all, sure in a Utopian world.. but I don't 7/11 is going to start giving you a pension. (That's why you have the Canadian Pension Plan)
I did make a lot of money but that has nothing to do with my Company pension which is very good along with health benefits such as prescriptions for $00.35 cents, glasses up to $400.00, semi private room although I haven't had to use that yet. Oh, and hearing aids. One of my former co-workers and band member has had to get a hearing aid and the plan covered it 100%.
I left at 55 but I didn't consider it a retirement but an opportunity to do what I wanted when I wanted to. It had nothing to do with laziness but more with intellectual curiosity........
Lol, you're so obtuse.
Yes, the government has nothing to do with it..:roll:
So, ole JLM not only enjoys CPP but a rock solid government pension that in no way is affected by the market.
Does JLM support this for all workers?
Does he even support it for his own kids?
Even better, does he support the union that maintained this benefit?
You've asked this question before under numerous Nom de Plumes.......................Is your memory failing you, D!nk head?
Geez you can be obtuse. I support pensions for EVERYONE especially for those who funded it for 35 years as I did..........you should just mind your own f**king business and quit worrying about everyone ELSE'S pension. I don't support the system of working for 6 years to qualify for a pension in the six figures for the next 50 years but there is S.F.A. I can do about it.
Time to "eighty six" him once and for all!
Best to 86 me than struggle to challenge me.
Typical cancon collective.
Of course....I will also collect my government pension.
Typical cancon collective.
Of course....I will also collect my government pension.
Then why are you busting JLM's chops over something you're willing to accept yourself?
If true, whose fault would that be?
And just for the record you never paid f**k all into my pension!
I got a pension, it covers the beer.Whichprovides all the vitamins andnutrients you actually need, that's the purely uti8litarian reasonwe consume it. To rise above the rest of yall.
Josh Bivens notes that U.S. corporations are already paying a lower share of taxes than has historically been the case - meaning that there's no air of reality to the claim that handing them more money will produce any positive economic results.
t is often claimed that American corporate tax rates are much-higher than our international peers, and that this has harmed U.S. corporations’ competitiveness. However, these claims are both factually incorrect and economically meaningless. On the facts, while the statutory corporate tax rate in the United States is 35 percent, after loopholes and deductions, the effective tax rate that corporations pay is only 14 percent.
To help most American families, corporate tax proposals should focus on increasing, not decreasing, the taxes paid by corporations. The corporate tax system is so riddled with loopholes that it raises far too little revenue and doesn’t contribute enough to the need of the federal government to honor existing commitments to social insurance, income support, and public investment. If policymakers are going to push corporate “tax reform,” they should focus on requiring corporations to pay their fair share of taxes.
more
www.epi.org/...
t is often claimed that American corporate tax rates are much-higher than our international peers, and that this has harmed U.S. corporations’ competitiveness. However, these claims are both factually incorrect and economically meaningless. On the facts, while the statutory corporate tax rate in the United States is 35 percent, after loopholes and deductions, the effective tax rate that corporations pay is only 14 percent.
To help most American families, corporate tax proposals should focus on increasing, not decreasing, the taxes paid by corporations. The corporate tax system is so riddled with loopholes that it raises far too little revenue and doesn’t contribute enough to the need of the federal government to honor existing commitments to social insurance, income support, and public investment. If policymakers are going to push corporate “tax reform,” they should focus on requiring corporations to pay their fair share of taxes.
more
www.epi.org/...
Sniffity, sniff, sniff indeed...... Some people like to know what's going on outside of their little bubble........
Donald Trump has proposed cutting taxes as a way of “priming the pump” -- that is, stimulating the economy.
Whether stimulus could help the economy is an interesting question, but it’s not the most important thing to be asking. The real question is whether tax cuts are the right thing to try. And the answer is probably not.
Lots of people like the idea of tax cuts as stimulus. According to standard economic theory, taxes distort the economy and harm efficiency. And basic Keynesian theory says that tax cuts stimulate the economy in bad times. Therefore, if you want to get out of a recession, why not reduce taxes, thereby killing two birds with one stone? Economists who think taxes should be as low as possible tend to see the fiscal stimulus aspect as an added benefit.
First, classic Keynesian theory says that tax cuts are a much weaker stimulus than government spending. In a depressed economy, there are unused resources that need to be put to work -- idle factories, empty office buildings, workers sitting around at home because they’re unable to find a job. The idea of stimulus is to match the unused workers with the unused factories and office buildings, by having the government spend money that filters through the economy.
If the government hands out money to people via a tax cut, they’ll spend some of it and save some of it.
Also, it’s worth noting that tax cuts go mostly to the well-off, because the wealthy and the upper-middleclass shoulder much more of the tax burden. But the well-off have much higher savings rates than the poor and working-class:
Therefore, pipe fixers and road workers are likely to spend more of any government windfall than the typical recipients of a tax cut.
more
www.bloomberg.com/...