Dave Ramsey on Debt

[UberTong]

Just like the rest of the historic facts you pepper this board with.

Ya you can't just stamp 'historical fact' and be done, because that is far from fact. It's like in Talladega Nights when he says "with all due respect", you can't just say whatever you want after that. Just sayin Ricky Bobby, just sayin.

[jscwerve]

A consumption tax is the largest form of regressive tax out there. Joe middle class spends all his earnings to survive. But it is impossible for a hedge fund manager to spend 1 billion a year on goods. So what happens is the "effective" tax rate for joe middle class his 100% of his earnings and it the billion dollar hedge fund manager is only subject to taxes on perhaps 1% alone.

Doesn't that mean that the hedge fund manager would be reinvesting his excess? Either for business (creating jobs etc), or personal? The first part of my post was about taxing investment income and businesses. The consumption tax for goods, the business and investment income taxed otherwise.

Again, economics hurts my head, but I'm trying to get a grasp on it.

[cstone]

It may be REGRESSIVE for the portion of the populous that pays taxes, but what is it for the percentage that pays no federal taxes?

Many people do not realize that if they have payroll taxes withheld all year long, then get every penny of it back at the end of the year, they are actually not paying any federal tax at all.

Does anyone have a good source for the actual percentage of the citizenry that actually pays any net federal payroll taxes?

Tax reform is absolutely essential, if for no other reason, to restore some sense of faith to the citizens that they can understand where the money comes from and can relate that to where it is spent.

The revenue issue of ~18% of GDP is a historical issue that seems to be pretty well documented. If the government would like to spend more than it does now, then it seems the best way to do that would be to grow the GDP. Does the GDP grow with more government regulation or less government regulation?

[tmleadr03]

To what end Nynco? Would we increase taxes on all imports so that they would then do the same for our exports? This isn't the first 100 years where our imports/exports were nowhere near where they are now nor was our market the driving market of the world nor were we anything more than a small struggling country with just a couple million people. That model can no longer work in a global economy.

And the class warfare that you want to wage, who will that benefit in the end? Raises the taxes on the rich, that's what I keep hearing, yet those "rich" are the ones who create jobs and expand our economy. So we penalize them for what? For being better off than the rest of us, that's what it boils down to. The rich are easy targets, they are the haves and we are the have-nots.

Rubbish.

Bullshit Smoot-Hawley worked wonders for our country. We need to get back to that right now.

[two shoes]

With the rise of unions in the 1940s, so do did the middle class rise out of the poor and working class. As unions have been broken the middle class has started to disappear like today. Historical fact.

Having worked in NY at JFK airport, where a job that would have taken me 8 hours took 3 days, I have no use for the "modern" union. I had to direct their people on how to do my job. Between the coffee, lunch and smoke breaks, we only got in about 4 hours of work each day.

The 'unions' are stronger than ever each place I have been. Only one time when the company was loosing huge amounts of money and the plant was at risk of closing did they ever say "go ahead and do it yourself, we need to get this unit back up and running" Sit around and wait.

I understand the need for unions back in Upton Sinclair's days, but everywhere I have been, the union's only function was to protect the people that should have been fired. They promote laziness and working of the system.

[nynco]

To what end Nynco? Would we increase taxes on all imports so that they would then do the same for our exports? This isn't the first 100 years where our imports/exports were nowhere near where they are now nor was our market the driving market of the world nor were we anything more than a small struggling country with just a couple million people. That model can no longer work in a global economy.

And the class warfare that you want to wage, who will that benefit in the end? Raises the taxes on the rich, that's what I keep hearing, yet those "rich" are the ones who create jobs and expand our economy. So we penalize them for what? For being better off than the rest of us, that's what it boils down to. The rich are easy targets, they are the haves and we are the have-nots.

Rubbish.

Please tell me how it is class warfare to want a flat tax on all earnings regardless of labor or investment source? Its class warfare to argue that investors should not pay taxes on income like a worker.

As to the amount of trade... yes there is more trade now. But there was a lot more trade back then too than you realize. Shipping has improved. But the relation of society size to trade back then was very high too. Why do you think we fought the revolution? Mainly because of economics. The crown had reverse tariffs on the colonies. We were by law not allowed to manufacture.

[nynco]

Now before you all pile on me. I think there needs to be union reform. I don't want to abolish unions. I think they are needed as a check and balance.

[UberTong]

They promote laziness and working of the system.

+ a lot.

[UberTong]

Now before you all pile on me. I think there needs to be union reform. I don't want to abolish unions. I think they are needed as a check and balance.

What the hell do they keep balanced and checked? They promote laziness, a big shield for what is all too uncommon today, the dreaded lazy victim.

[nynco]

What the hell do they keep balanced and checked? They promote laziness, a big shield for what is all too uncommon today, the dreaded lazy victim.

Well then think about how to reform them. Because they do play a positive roll too.