Profile | Entries | Thread Author | Posts | Activity |
---|---|---|---|---|
Without a doubt the middle class is the one being screwed, but just because a corporation only pays 18%, that doesn't mean that the top earning individuals within that company aren't paying 40-50%. Every penny that a corporation collects and distributes as pay to its employees is taxed twice. Also, I completely agree that the TARP bill was a textbook example of socialism, but that was a radical and unprecedented move, and I for one would not have had a problem letting those companies declare bankruptcy. Sometimes you need a reality check to expose systemic problems and to ensure that they are not repeated, but our politicians didn't want to be the one's who were in power when we entered the second depression and unemployment crept up to 25%. So they can argue whatever they want, but the motive for the bailouts was political, not economical. As far as some companies not paying taxes, you would have to look at each individual company, since they aren't all using the same loopholes, and most are simply carrying over previous years losses which won't continue for much longer. Even if all these companies were paying 35% in corporate income taxes, we still wouldn't even be close to having a balanced budget. Far from a scientific estimate, just looking at the 2012 corporate tax revenue of about 335 billion, taking into account that the 2012 effective corporate tax rate was estimated at 12%, which is about 1/3 of 35%, it would have been about 670 billion more, and we're not taking into account the effect those higher taxes may have had on economic productivity and income tax collection. Bottom line, we are still spending far more than we are taking in, even in a ideal scenario where our corporations are paying the second highest tax rates in the developed world. It's not sustainable. There aren't enough taxpayers to carry the current burden. I would disagree that the middle class gives to the upper class, if anything, the upper class just isn't giving as much to the government as a percentage of their income. Everybody's taxes go to the government, not other people, who then distribute it accordingly, and the middle class and upper class get very little of that money. So you have two types of people...those who contribute more in taxes than they get back in government benefits, and those who collect more in government benefits than contribute in taxes. The middle class and upper class are both in the same group. One isn't giving to the other, both are giving, it's just that the upper class is still left with enough money to live very comfortably, while the middle class feels a drop in living standards. This is why the middle class is the victim in all of this...they make too much to collect assistance, but not enough to live worry free regardless of what the tax rate is. I think that everybody's tax rate should be as low as possible, with a straightforward progressive incline. I don't think necessarily that the upper class tax rate should be increased...the fact that they can weasel out of paying some taxes is unfair, but I don't think that is the problem, I think that everybody who pays taxes is paying too much. Now...just because I said it can be mutually exclusive does not mean that I think it has to be. I agree that corporate welfare for the most part is nonsense, but again, it pales in comparison to the amount spent on social welfare programs. So I do believe that companies should be given some slack when we discuss this issue, because you can have a capitalist democracy where everyone is a business owner taking advantage of tax loopholes, but you can't when everybody doesn't work and wants to collect welfare. Sorry for kind of rambling, I do agree with a lot of what you said, and I 100% agree that at the core of the problem is that the right and left view the other as the enemy, instead of simply as a fellow American with a different opinion. Nothing will change until both sides can put America's interests above their partisan agenda.
|
canovsp | 24 |
|
|
"corporate welfare is the first place i'd start." From what I have read on corporate welfare, I do agree that there are some bizarre and frustrating expenditures regarding corporations that rival typical entitlement program head scratchers (such as an earmark for 37 million to expand a road in Arkansas to make it easier for employees to reach Walmart's headquarters???). The problem is that even people who automatically dislike government spending peg the total amount spent on corporate welfare at around 100 billion for fiscal year 2012, and of that, about 25 billion was agriculture related, and thus doesn't pertain to the hated Walmart's, banks, big oil, etc. (https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/corporate-welfare-federal-budget) To put into perspective, for fiscal year 2012... "Corporate Welfare" Programs: Estimated 100 Billion Social Security: 778 Billion Medicare: 484 Billion Income Security (defined as cash or near-cash assistance to low income families): 580 Billion (https://budget.house.gov/budgetprocess/budgetfunctions.htm# function600) Interest paid on national debt: 225 Billion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_federal_budget) So, to me, corporate welfare seems to be a drop in the bucket compared to the other entitlement and traditional welfare programs, heck it's even less than half of what the government paid in INTEREST alone! In 2012, corporations paid: - 555 Billion is employer social security contributions - 330 Billion in corporate taxes I'm going to ignore the 1.1 Trillion in personal income tax, and just look at it from the corporate view, even though obviously without businesses employing people and paying them wages (including its top executives) most of that personal income tax revenue wouldn't exist. (https://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/year_revenue_2012 USbn_12bs1n_10#usgs302) So, even if all the corporate welfare that is spent annually is waste and should be eliminated, and we ignore the enormous impact business has on personal income tax revenue, the government is still collecting way more from companies than it is dishing out to them, meaning the government is still coming out ahead in its relationship with business. (About 885 Billion to 100 Billion for fiscal year 2012) I'm not saying that any waste should be ignored, but corporate welfare would hardly be the first place I would start. Separating the waste from the justified subsidies would do little in addressing the budget deficit.
|
canovsp | 24 |
|
|
I believe that most people have good intentions, and since we are talking about theories here, I concede that far more intelligent people than myself can make arguments for or against socialism or capitalism.
I look at it like this... Socialism is the belief that a government can implement a perfectly equal society. Capitalism accepts that this perfectly equal society is impossible, but through liberty and personal freedom we can get as close to it as possible. We are seeing socialism quietly take over our country, as our government continues to get bigger, and many Americans believe that Washington is best suited to impose and regulate everything in our lives, health care being the most recent casualty. The private sector will continue to be resilient and continue to create wealth, as evident in the fact that since the great recession started, the stock market has rebounded to new heights, and companies have remained profitable, while the government has seen record deficits, and only continues to get worse as it grows. At some point, however, the private sector will cease to be the main engine in our economy, and the government will take over that role. (Assuming we don't default, and this deficit trend can continue in perpetuity) At this point, we will have a majority of Americans dependent on government benefits such as social security, unemployment, food stamps, housing assistance, medicare, etc. Politicians will keep funding these programs since they need votes to stay in power, and you can't win re-election if you defund a program that most of your constituents depend on. I'm no Milton Friedman, but I can tell you that a government running a 3 trillion dollar deficit that only continues to get worse is not sustainable. People can say all they want about Wall Street greed, but unlike the government, even if Goldman Sachs pays its executives tens of millions of dollars, they are still profitable at the end of the day, and are creating wealth for their shareholders. I think that is more reasonable than Washington paying over 100,000 people in the IRS to oversee the collection of an amount in taxes that doesn't even come close to paying its bills.
|
canovsp | 24 |
|
|
First, I can appreciate how frustrating it is to lose a bet, especially in a heated matchup where emotions are running high. It's a terrible feeling, and is made even worse if you indulged in some trash talking beforehand.
However, nobody can argue with the fact that there were an unconscionable amount of threads being started by people who were complaining about the referee's in today's San Fran/Carolina game. If you bet Carolina and were upset with the officiating, what did you expect when you then logged into covers and posted a thread complaining about it? For everybody to agree with you? You know that some people bet the 49ers, and would take issue with your comments. If you didn't want to hear from them, you shouldn't have started a thread. To me, anybody who started such a thread was looking for a fight, so that they could vent their anger. Putting me in the penalty box really doesn't impact me at all, I think the last time I posted anything was over a year ago, but I do find it funny that the cry babies that I offended with my sarcasm proved me right by crying yet again, this time to covers to put my post in the penalty box.
|
jorfeforce | 1 |
|
|
Unbelievable, the referees are supposed to block the 49ers and they just let them run in and sack Cameron Newton.
How is Carolina supposed to win when the ref's let the 49ers sack Cam? This obviously proves that the Illuminati created a robot that we call "Roger Goodell," and that he is advancing their grand scheme to send San Fran to Seattle to watch Pete Carroll and Jim Harbaugh attack each other so mayhem ensues, allowing them to seize control of the United States. I am going to my local Piggly Wiggly store to pick up a new box of Kleenex before I need to check my flood insurance policy to see if it covers tears.
|
jorfeforce | 1 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by phixer: det -3 550$ Haha. Not a very wise selection. I, on the other hand, had $100,000,000.00 on a parlay of Dallas +3 and Denver/Washington over 58.5. That alone means that I am the best. It feels very good to be the best handicapper ever, as well as one of the richest people in brilliantville now hahahahaha. Thanks again for the fade material, amateur.
|
phixer | 2804 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by Exceller: Nebraska Top 10 team UCLA , not even in the top 50
This ones easy "Nuff said" - Bernie Mac RIP PS: Bet packers tomorrow
|
Exceller | 19 |
|
|
Where is he at?
|
SharperThanYou | 116 |
|
|
good call, i took them as well, but of course couldn't keep it simple and had to parlay it with spurs -11.5
|
MJdagr8tstprd | 3 |
|
|
|
FrankieNapp | 191 |
|
|
Trying to go 8 for 10, opinions welcome, and I'd appreciate any advice.
Southern Miss (+5)- This game is going to be close, and Kansas State has been getting alot of love, but if McGruder is kept in check I don't think they have to ability to win convincingly against a team that who distributes the ball well, and has been playing solid team ball all year. Southern Miss has 6 players that average at least 9.5 points a game. I think that this game will be decided in the last minute of the game. Louisville (-6.5)- Another well rounded team, and although I don't like laying 6.5, I think they will shut down Davidson's big men, and pull away in the 2nd. If they can play their style of ball, it could get out of hand quickly. I worry about them giving up too many offensive boards, but for whatever reason they jumped out at me, and I am going with my gut. |
jorfeforce | 1 |
|
|
#12 is such a beast, he is so comfortable running this offense
|
mikeru3 | 941 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by jwub91781: Your either retarted or blind,one of the two .. Not even a question ...refs blew that.. I actually was just kidding, it was obviously a close call, but keep calling people retarded while you spell you're your
|
mikeru3 | 941 |
|
|
that wasn't even close to being a fumble
|
mikeru3 | 941 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by cam2smitty: In regards to the Brees/San Fran part I checked out the QB rating statistics which i think is the most relevant. San Fran at home holds QBs to roughly 13pts below their average QB rating. They hold QBs to a QBR of 68 vs their average of 81. Drew Brees has an average QBR of 120 at home and 100 on the road, a 20 point drop off. Thats significant. Further, Drew Brees averages a QBR 33 points above his opponents defense's average at home, while only averaging a QBR 10 points above his opponents average on the road. His Yards Per Pass drops by roughly a yard on the road as well. I just don't think he is the same on the road, even accounting for the strength of the defenses he faces. With the San Fran matchup, Drew Brees' QBR outperformance on the road is equalized by San Fran's forcing underperformance at home. Drew Brees QBR vs San Fran Outperformance=100-13=QBR of 87 San Fran D vs Brees Outperformance=68+10=78 Average=82.5 This is certainly a low number, but has been seen 3 times this season, all 3 on the road, so it is certainly possible. In those 3 games the Saints scored 23, 20, and 21 points. Those numbers are very possible if not likely vs a 49ers D that gives up 11 a game at home. solid analysis As far as SF, I think those numbers are def a testament to the way their d has been playing this year, but I also think the talent level of opposing qb's may have made them look better than they really are, they faced: tavaris jackson, romo, freeman, mccoy, eli, skelton/bartel? haha, feeley, and big ben. romo threw for 350/2 td/0 picks eli threw for 310/2/2 ben threw for 330/0/3, while dealing with that ankle injury the 3 good qb's they faced had very different results, but brees is obviously on another level than them. The fact that they all broke 300 yards shows me that brees should be able to get his. on the other side, brees didn't face very good defenses on the road, so what it boils down to for me is sf facing the best qb they have played against all year, while brees is facing the best passing defense he will see on the road all year I'm just more comfortable going with the experienced playoff qb on a team hitting their stride, who is also coming off his greatest campaign, if this line was 6+ i would reconsider, but 3.5 just isn't enough for me
|
cam2smitty | 31 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by illnasty10: pats by 16 wouldn't surprise me, but I think they will win by 7-10, i just think it will be a fast moving game, and that brady won't have enough drives to put up huge numbers
|
jorfeforce | 3 |
|
|
San fran has by far the best run defense in the NFL this season, but they are middle of the pack as far as passing yards allowed, which has me thinking brees will sling it around 45 times this game. If SF's offense can't stay on the field long enough to give their d rest, this game could get ugly fast, plus I don't see smith making enough big plays to keep them in it if they go down by more than 2 td's
I am a big fan of houston, but i think they will have a similar problem as the niners in that they have a below average qb who may struggle if they have to step up to keep their teams in it. For houston to win, they need foster to dominate, but b-more sports the second best run defense, and will be stacking 8 in the box. but the big difference here is that they have andre johnson and they are getting 9 points, which makes this the toughest game for me to bet this weekend. On you with denver though, way too many points, and all the pressure is on the patriots denver should be able to run the ball, which would keep that clock running, and tebow should be able to complete those short high percentage passes which should lead to some long time consuming drives
|
cam2smitty | 31 |
|
|
NO -3.5, hottest team in the NFL brings the show to the sunny bay area
GB -8, giants are playing well, but green bay has flown under the radar all year somehow, laying 8 scares me, but after it's 14-0 at the end of the 1st quarter I'll feel way more comfortable Baltimore -9, alot of points to lay again, but when the ravens shut down the texans running game, I expect Yates and company to fall apart in the second half Denver +13.5, they have nothing to lose, and NE hasn't shown enough on d to warrant laying almost 2 td's Teasing the saints and packers seems like the best route since the NFL definitely wants a brees vs. rodgers NFC championship game. Thoughts?
|
jorfeforce | 3 |
|
|
this was just a thread to bring up an interesting tidbit from the game, it's what makes sports great.
tebow may be out of the league in 3 years but this season he has definitely given nfl fans a storyline that they will never forget, polarizing athletes like him keep the game entertaining. I don't even really like tebow, and i had bet pit in that game but it still is fun to watch the emotions that the guy brings out in ppl Is it annoying at times, yes, but as long as he keeps winning i will give him the benefit of the doubt, especially because all he is doing is being himself mad respect to jpro, my man just won 10k playing blackjack at turning stone right outside of syracuse and put 500 on 13, 27, and 34 on roulette and it hit 34, along with some other chicanery, he ended up walking out with 27k, the greatest casino run i have ever witnessed, the amount of girls choking my bird made me forget how much my nose was bleeding
|
jorfeforce | 37 |
|
|
jpro you know how we do, and believe me it's true...mo money mo problems
|
jorfeforce | 37 |
|
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.