Forum Post: [DELETED]
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 29, 2011, 4:58 a.m. EST by anonymous
()
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
[DELETED]
Public Forum
2 comments 3 weeks ago by gsw
1 comments 4 months ago by factsrfun
5 comments 1 year ago by agkaiser
6 comments 1 year ago by grapes
15 comments 1 year ago by gsw
12 comments 1 year ago by BrentWeirick81
30 comments 2 years ago by ChicagoCitizen
48 comments 2 years ago by factsrfun
16 comments 2 years ago by factsrfun
2 comments 2 years ago by ChicagoCitizen
2 comments 2 years ago by ChicagoCitizen
8 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
7 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
1 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
1 comments 2 years ago by grapes
6 comments 2 years ago by haightashbury98
51 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
5 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
14 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
7 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
1 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
1 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
6 comments 3 years ago by agkaiser
68% of Americans favor raising taxes on the wealthy, I guess Buddy the Banker's flat tax proposal puts him in the other group. No thanks.
I just love the name “buddyroemer” it sounds so much like “butt reamer”
Those that know me know why I like this name
your nom de plume made me laugh
I have to go to work now.
That's code for I have to log on as another name and make stupid anti-OWS comments another way.
Actually I have no job, my parents support me. I am really just an anti-social piece of shit that does this for some sort of human interaction.
Hey any kind of attention is better than no attention!
dude, write a book, you'll be rich and happy, or so the american dream goes...
You don't have to go very far to see where this douche-bag stands.
LOWER TAXES ON THE RICH!
Buddy Roemer on the Issues:
Income taxes would be simplified to a flat tax, with an individual exemption of $50,000. A flat tax of 17 percent would be paid on all income beyond that. This means that individuals making $50,000 or less would pay no income tax, while those making more than $100,000 would have an effective tax rate of 8.5 percent.
The rest of his platform is just as bad ...
You don't get it do you? The first $50,000 is untaxed. The next $50,000 is taxed at 17%. So effectively, if you make $100,000, you are only taxed 8.5% on the overall, or 17% on the $50,000 you make over the first $50,000. And the poor are not taxed at all. Read your own quote over again. It proves what you said yourself wrong. I don't support this buddy guy, but come on, if you're going to rip on him, at least get your facts right.
That is a direct quote from Roemer's website. Follow the link and read it for yourself ...
The current top tax rate is 35%, although the effective rate is generally between half and two-thirds 0f that. So this proposal would result in a massive tax DECREASE on high incomes.
I know it's a direct quote. You just completely misunderstood it.
And yes, it is 35%. But there are plenty of loopholes. A flat tax will eliminate loopholes and bring the overall taxes paid up. That's the whole point of a flat tax. No breaks for mortgages, no breaks for donating to charity, no breaks for anything. You just pay a flat rate.
.17 x 50,000 = .085 x 100,000.
Empty rhetoric. It's lower taxes on the rich. What about dividends, capital gains and inheritance taxes? What about foreign investment tax credits? How much tax revenue would it generate? This is a campaign slogan, not a viable plan.
Inheritance shouldn't be taxed. That's double taxing income.
Dividends and Capital Gains are not taxed or barely taxed under the Bush tax cuts. And plenty of middle class people own stock (I do) as well as rich. It's a very viable plan, but you don't want to understand it properly.
It's not a plan, it's a campaign slogan, and it's not viable. There is no analysis of revenue generation and consequent economic effects. you want a taste of what this looks like? HUGE state and municipal tax shortfalls are looming and will have to be dealt with soon.
Inheritance must be taxed, that is the only way to prevent an aristocracy. Taxing capital gains, dividends and interest at a lower rate than labor and services devalues labor and services. Thus no jobs, because the so-called "job-creators" make far more money on money than they do on creating jobs.
Being a retired couple living on 47k gross, I kind of like it. Been paying taxes all our life.
A true progressive tax system would put you in a small tax bracket while putting the wealthy in a large one. The so-called "flat-tax" is just another way to reduce taxes on the rich. The current top tax rate is 35%, Roemer would lower this to 8.5%.
I suggest reading over his entire platform before coming to a decision about his candidacy. http://www.buddyroemer.com/issues
Another thought is maybe with the rich being taxed less they will leave the rest of us alone and stop threatening our lives/livelihood and let us live! I just do not know ... all I know is I have no desire to lie, cheat and steal to be rich!
Okay, I will. My first thought about the 8.5%, on the positive side, would be if the rich had a reduced tax rate they may hire more people since they insist on keeping their large profit margin. Ha! probably not. I can tell you right now that with the choices we now have I plan not to vote because I will not condone what is going on.
karen, that mantra you spew is a losing, can't do attitude. Imagine if our foreign policy was to negotiate with terrorists. Would they be happy with just one island or two. Democracy is negotiations. Giving them what they want so they will leave you alone, is not a quality they taught me in the ghetto. Capitulation just ant the American way.
Okay, just trying to look at another side ... It seems like money, greed and power has always won in history. Seems like these traits are part of human nature.
don't get me wrong, his idea is a middle of the road solution, but fair taxes just is not how America operates. take for instence our crumbling infrastructure; who uses it more. UPS or you and me. this whole nation was built to accommodate capital. and through history, industrialists knew that. This idea that we should all pay the taxes evenly just don't jive with the facts. why should you, the industrialists and I pay the same amount for the Super Fund?
America needs a new way to operate ... don't you think?
i would say, and maybe all our nation needs is one group bowing to the other. But, it seems like we have been bowing to the job creators my whole life. maybe, we just ant been bowing well enough. or maybe we as the middle and the lower do ask for too much. either way, it looks like we have stumbled into a quagmire.
I definitely agree we have not get our fair share. The "job creators" give us a measly pay check and do not want to contribute any more. They scream at health insurance and education for their employees who by the way are the people who are making them rich. So lets all become self sustainable communities with people having different skill sets and sc_ the big corporations!
Or you know everyone can pay the same taxes period. I never really liked the idea of tax brackets.
Flat tax is regressive, it penalizes those with little money and rewards those with a lot. It is even more unfair than the current system, and will further concentrate wealth in the hands of a few.
Assuming of course that they do not collapse the global economy ...
thumbs up for for Buddy Roemer!
i saw him on c-span and was impressed. if he won the primaries, i could envision him as President.
He looks like Jerry Springer
I dig what he has to say and the main thing is he's not taking corporate money. So far he has my vote in front of Obama and any GOP candidate for sure.
Thanks for the suggestion. I will follow him and see. I saw his name on Americans Elect too.
[Deleted]
Ridding politics/government/lobbying/cronyism would create a more egalitarian society plus an agenda more mindful of what we wish rather than what cronies flourish on. Peace.
Looked and signed up for his newsletter.
I stopped reading your links long ago when I realized you were posting the same one over, and over, and over again. Sorry, but I don't encourage spam. I'll read your posts, comment, but I'll only follow the links of the users who have not spammed this forum.
[Deleted]
I'm just giving you some marketing advice, so that you understand how users feel. I also have websites, but I don't market them here. I'm not saying the links you post are spam websites, I'm saying your tactic of always starting news threads to post the same citycommons link is a turn off which, unfortunately, lowers my motivation to click on your other links. It's a question of respect. Many people use this site. When you post over and over again the same link, it becomes nothing more than pollution.
[Deleted]
Why do you care about searches for "citi"? I don't understand this. People who know your site will go directly, and people who search for "citi" are probably looking for something else.
You do know that your tactic can hurt your results right? Google checks where links are coming from. You get points when you are linked to from another site. But, Google also removes points if it realizes that you have many links on many pages of a same site. They have algorithms which detect this as spam. It's a very bad tactic for SEO in the long run. Sort of like repeating the same word over and over again on a page.
[Deleted]
Be careful, because the more links you have coming from the same site the more you'll look like a spammer in Google's eyes. Once you go over the limit, the algorithm will flag you as a spammer and that will cost you. It's pretty obvious to know this. When a site has 70 links all in different pages linking to the same external site, the web bots know it's spam.
But hey, do as you please. It's your site not mine. If you don't care about your reputation, keep spamming. This is not my forum after all.
[Deleted]
Iv'e been programming applications and websites for 22 years. I have seen clients destroy their Google ratings with this very tactic.
You might remember when the web started. A lot of programmers would repeat words over and over again in the same color as the background. You wouldn't see the words on the screen, but the bots saw them. The first search engines were primitive and only counted the number of words for relevance so this worked quite well for them. Then Google changed this by looking at the context in which the words were being used. Right now, a word does well if it appears about 7 times on a web page in various paragraphs spread throughout the page. Your headers are important as well as your URL.
But, Google doesn't only look at your site for page ranks. It also checks all the other sites that link to you. If a very popular site links to yours, this will help your ratings a lot more than tweaking a few catch phrases on your own site. That is the key. I saw my friend's site go from the 20th place on Google to the 1st in one weekend simply because a very popular site linked directly to hers. However, Google has done the same thing to fight spammers.The programmers know people go on forums and past their links over and over and over and over again. Google can see that your link is coming from different pages of the same site. The algorithm flags this as spam when the the link is repeated too many times. One well placed link on a good site is much better than a hundred links pasted in a forum.
Don't take my word for it. Test it out. Keep posting your link every day many many times. Suddenly, you will feel the wrath of what it's like to be considered a spammer. Your site will degrade in the ratings, not upgrade.
[Deleted]
If they are positive, it's because you haven't reached the threshold yet. When you have spammed enough your ratings will rapidly fall off. Google ratings can change overnight for these types of things. Good luck, and good spamming.
I understand, but there is always a fine line between marketing and spamming. Creating post after post to pass off your commons link is in my opinion spamming because it affects the readability of the forum. We are already flooded with all kinds of spam, adding more is not the answer. It's your site, your business. You can do what you like, but I and others are majorly turned off by your marketing strategy and, as a result, your site now rhymes with spam in our heads. There are much better ways to market. Getting hits and growing your user base is important, but your reputation is too.
[Deleted]
Well, if you spam you can expect your reputation the be harmed. Yes indeed. Bumping a post and creating new ones is pretty much equivalent. Your taking forum space for your marketing. It's spam. This is not a marketing platform.
In any case, your tactic will simply hurt you on Google.