luxury watches for men on sale
image
Jess
I am watching "The Men Who Built America" and IMO I think it ruined our society. The working conditions were absolutely terrible and workers barely got paid anything. They could barely feed their kids. You have these evil men who built these companies and they lived in a lap of luxury while their employees inhaled massive amounts of smog from steal mills. It did in fact "revolutionize" our society into the way it is today but in a bad way. All these big shots today only care about profits, consumerism, and mass production. They care less about their slaving employees. Yes we have Unions now but they aren't very relavent considering how many laws are in place now. I appreciate them for fighting for workers back then (and helped put those laws in place) but there is not much they can do now. We now live in a world where you stand in a factory for 12 hours doing back breaking labor and for what? To watch your family's structure go down the toilet? Before the Industrial revolution life was simple. Yeah you still worked long hours but it was on a farm. You were your own boss and you got to feed yourself and sell your produce to others for money. Family structure was stong because a father and son got to bond while doing their work. It was the pinnacle of masculinity. Now the fathers have to be gone all day and not able mentor their kids. That is why there is so many miguided boys today who basically get left to the media to tell them how to be a man.... which usually turns out to be either a steryle "nice" boy, or grow up to be abusive. Man we live in a messed up world now.
Answer
I absolutely agree with you. Human beings were not meant to stand on their feet all day, doing monotonous and highly dangerous work on auto assembly lines or in other factories. People still get seriously injured and killed in those jobs but we never hear about them. And how sad is it that we even need labor unions to protect us from unscrupulous, evil, greedy, miserable, rotten, overpaid CEOs in the first place!
Office work is the same bullshit, but the stress is on your soul and your humanity. Who cares if this report isn't typed properly or you forgot to fill out this page, or you didn't make your sales quota? You're right, in the days of family farms none of that existed and we did just fine. Technology has done great things for us, including making us healthier, improved sanitation, standardized manufacturing processes so the products we buy are safe and effective. But, It also turned us into over-scheduled, over-bureaucratized, subservient little boys and girls who are afraid of being downsized or just plain fired for no good reason.
I wish we could go back to a simpler time when family was all you needed and you respected and depended upon each other. We don't need iPhones, iPads, tech support, none of that crap.
What do you say to someone who says that anyone who opposes the fair tax is simply "afraid of change" ?
John
Answer
I would say that sometimes change is for the worse and the "FairTax" is a primo example of just that. Then I'd hit them with some REAL analysis:
There are loopholes all right. The really rich will, as always, be insulated. Companies sometimes provide the HOUSE, the CARS, the PLANE, etc.
for the CEO or such. Businesses aren't taxed with this plan, so the rich man gets a mansion, hot cars, even a plane without paying--even taxes on them. He will also get fed that way--NOTHING stops a company from providing food for him--they can serve breakfast, lunch, and dinner in
the dining room at work free for execs. Law can't touch that. Lots of other things WILL be done to circumvent the law because that is what the very rich do--which is why John Edwards, personal injury attorney, doesn't pay a high percentage in taxes though he's VERY rich.
Many luxuries WILL be purchased outside the US so we will lose some more revenue we would have had and probably some jobs.
In 1990, Congress decided to impose a "luxury tax" that proves that I am right.
Economist Walter Williams:
"In 1990, when Congress imposed a luxury tax on yachts, private airplanes and expensive automobiles, Sen. Ted Kennedy and then-Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell crowed publicly about how the rich would finally be paying their fair share of taxes. But yacht retailers reported a 77 percent drop in sales, and boat builders laid off an estimated 25,000 workers. What happened? Kennedy and Mitchell simply assumed that the rich would behave the same way after the imposition of the luxury tax as they did before and the only difference would be more money in the government's coffers. They had a zero-elasticity vision of the world, namely that people do not respond to price changes. People always respond, and the only debatable issue is how much and over what period."
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4097
This tax would destroy the middle class and put more people on welfare and Medicaid. The IRS is NOT abolished. It may be renamed (who cares)
and trimmed down in size (MAY BE) but who do you think collects the taxes and writes those monthly checks? BTW, cutting a check in government or business is VERY expensive. A bad use of taxpayer funds.
Also people should not be told by the government what they SHOULD spend on necessities (which are NOT exempted). They should also not expect a check from the government every month. This is a truly unAmerican plan.
Where it will bankrupt us is over medical costs. Especially with an aging population and more people retiring, more things will go wrong.
Medical CARE, from doctor's visits to prescriptions, are TAXED under this plan. That is a HUGE increase in expense for people and NO insurance will NOT cover the tax, nor can they be made to do so. Under the current system, those who have very high medical bills (more than 7.5% of their AGI) can DEDUCT that expense from taxes. You can NOT do that under the "FairTax." As many people who are ill (and the poor tend to be more ill) also need things such as special diets or more transportation (to the doctor and such), that is MORE that is taxed and will NOT be recovered by this generic prebate that does NOT allow for any individualization.
What will then happen is:
We will have more people on welfare--some will choose to NOT try to get the medical care and will become too ill to work
We will have more people on Medicaid--right now a significant number of folks on Medicare are ALSO on Medicaid because of high medical expenses. When medical expenses go up MORE than 30%, more people will be forced onto Medicaid--another expense the MIDDLE CLASS will be forced to pay.
We will have more bankruptcies. Right now, in the US more than half of all bankruptcies are over medical expenses AND the majority of those folks HAVE medical INSURANCE. Again, raise those rates, and watch people collapse economically.
The middle class already has a terrible tax burden. When there are fewer people working and more people on entitlement programs, the middle class will be driven into the lower class.
Furthermore, the "FairTax" does NOTHING to curb government spending. It is possible to increase the rate. It does NOT eliminate the gas tax.
The FACT is that the government charges TWICE AS MUCH IN TAXES as the oil companies get in profits per gallon of gas. Congress will want to raise MORE revenue by increasing the gas tax, pretending that will "help"
us--reduce use because it's too expensive to waste, etc. Increased gas taxes affect everyone from the homeless to the rich.
Also the "FairTax" does NOTHING to ensure that the feds will not force more of the tax burden on to the states, such as shifting Medicare costs to them. They did this with Medicaid years ago, straining state budgets.
The federal government PRINTS money and plays games but STATE governments have to raise taxes--and they will, so state taxes WILL climb. The "FairTax" doesn't prevent that either.
A couple of things from the "FairTax" web site show they know good and well this is a crock:
"Why not just exempt necessities from the FairTax instead of providing for a prebate?
The prebate is the most equitable and most efficient way to make the FairTax progressive. If the FairTax were to exempt necessities, the tax
rate would have to be 20 percent higher than the FairTax rate with a prebate."
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?p...
There's proof: they would have to charge 20% MORE than what they admit to now just to cover what they SHOULD "prebate" for NECESSITIES. It's VERY easy to NOT tax necessities--many states don't charge for groceries or prescriptions, for example. I know of no state that charges for a
doctor office or hospital visit or such--that will all change with their plan. This is going to KILL the ill.
"Why not just exempt food and medicine from the tax? Wouldnââ¬â¢t that be fair and simple?
Exempting items by category is neither fair nor simple. Respected economists have shown that the wealthy spend much more on unprepared food, clothing, housing, and medical care than do the poor. Exempting these goods, as many state sales taxes do, actually gives the wealthy a
disproportionate benefit. Also, today these purchases are not exempted from federal taxation. The purchase of food, clothing, and medical services is made from after-income-tax and after-payroll-tax dollars, while their purchase price hides the cost of corporate taxes and private sector compliance costs.
Finally, exempting one product or service, but not another, opens the door to the army of lobbyists and special interest groups that plague and distort our taxation system today. Those who have the money will send lobbyists to Washington to obtain special tax breaks in their own self-interest. This process causes unfair and inefficient distortions in our economy and must be stopped."
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?p...
A consumption tax, which is what this is, CAN be fair. However, in order to NOT be regressive it MUST exempt necessities.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
