Home › Forums › Financial Markets/Economics › Are Republicans exaggerating the effects of tax increases to small businesses?
- This topic has 210 replies, 20 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 2 months ago by
dbapig.
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 28, 2009 at 8:04 AM #357646February 28, 2009 at 8:07 AM #357072
CoronitaParticipant[quote=TheBreeze][quote=UCGal][quote=flu][quote=UCGal]
Everyone I know was polled too.
If you have an address, you’ll get polled. You may choose to ignore it, but you will receive the census questionaire in 2010.[/quote]At a $1billion price tag for us taxpayers, I better :)[/quote]
Continuing the hijack…Well considering it’s actually required under the constitution to determine congressional seats, we all better. 😉
[/quote]Another idiot Republican gets pwnd.[/quote]
Lol… I say again, I really have no political affiliation. i voted for clinton and against bush, anything to keep the government balanced.
I fail to see how it could possible cost $1billion to fix a census. Maybe it costs $990 million to hire consultants and have meetings about the need to fix the census, from which the only outcome is “we need to fix the census”, then the remaining $10million to actually do it. Isn’t that typically how our government spends money? Guess what after the $1billion, the census is still going to be screwed up as it always will.
Breeze, did you forget your bipolar medicine again?
February 28, 2009 at 8:07 AM #357374CoronitaParticipant[quote=TheBreeze][quote=UCGal][quote=flu][quote=UCGal]
Everyone I know was polled too.
If you have an address, you’ll get polled. You may choose to ignore it, but you will receive the census questionaire in 2010.[/quote]At a $1billion price tag for us taxpayers, I better :)[/quote]
Continuing the hijack…Well considering it’s actually required under the constitution to determine congressional seats, we all better. 😉
[/quote]Another idiot Republican gets pwnd.[/quote]
Lol… I say again, I really have no political affiliation. i voted for clinton and against bush, anything to keep the government balanced.
I fail to see how it could possible cost $1billion to fix a census. Maybe it costs $990 million to hire consultants and have meetings about the need to fix the census, from which the only outcome is “we need to fix the census”, then the remaining $10million to actually do it. Isn’t that typically how our government spends money? Guess what after the $1billion, the census is still going to be screwed up as it always will.
Breeze, did you forget your bipolar medicine again?
February 28, 2009 at 8:07 AM #357513CoronitaParticipant[quote=TheBreeze][quote=UCGal][quote=flu][quote=UCGal]
Everyone I know was polled too.
If you have an address, you’ll get polled. You may choose to ignore it, but you will receive the census questionaire in 2010.[/quote]At a $1billion price tag for us taxpayers, I better :)[/quote]
Continuing the hijack…Well considering it’s actually required under the constitution to determine congressional seats, we all better. 😉
[/quote]Another idiot Republican gets pwnd.[/quote]
Lol… I say again, I really have no political affiliation. i voted for clinton and against bush, anything to keep the government balanced.
I fail to see how it could possible cost $1billion to fix a census. Maybe it costs $990 million to hire consultants and have meetings about the need to fix the census, from which the only outcome is “we need to fix the census”, then the remaining $10million to actually do it. Isn’t that typically how our government spends money? Guess what after the $1billion, the census is still going to be screwed up as it always will.
Breeze, did you forget your bipolar medicine again?
February 28, 2009 at 8:07 AM #357541CoronitaParticipant[quote=TheBreeze][quote=UCGal][quote=flu][quote=UCGal]
Everyone I know was polled too.
If you have an address, you’ll get polled. You may choose to ignore it, but you will receive the census questionaire in 2010.[/quote]At a $1billion price tag for us taxpayers, I better :)[/quote]
Continuing the hijack…Well considering it’s actually required under the constitution to determine congressional seats, we all better. 😉
[/quote]Another idiot Republican gets pwnd.[/quote]
Lol… I say again, I really have no political affiliation. i voted for clinton and against bush, anything to keep the government balanced.
I fail to see how it could possible cost $1billion to fix a census. Maybe it costs $990 million to hire consultants and have meetings about the need to fix the census, from which the only outcome is “we need to fix the census”, then the remaining $10million to actually do it. Isn’t that typically how our government spends money? Guess what after the $1billion, the census is still going to be screwed up as it always will.
Breeze, did you forget your bipolar medicine again?
February 28, 2009 at 8:07 AM #357651CoronitaParticipant[quote=TheBreeze][quote=UCGal][quote=flu][quote=UCGal]
Everyone I know was polled too.
If you have an address, you’ll get polled. You may choose to ignore it, but you will receive the census questionaire in 2010.[/quote]At a $1billion price tag for us taxpayers, I better :)[/quote]
Continuing the hijack…Well considering it’s actually required under the constitution to determine congressional seats, we all better. 😉
[/quote]Another idiot Republican gets pwnd.[/quote]
Lol… I say again, I really have no political affiliation. i voted for clinton and against bush, anything to keep the government balanced.
I fail to see how it could possible cost $1billion to fix a census. Maybe it costs $990 million to hire consultants and have meetings about the need to fix the census, from which the only outcome is “we need to fix the census”, then the remaining $10million to actually do it. Isn’t that typically how our government spends money? Guess what after the $1billion, the census is still going to be screwed up as it always will.
Breeze, did you forget your bipolar medicine again?
February 28, 2009 at 8:09 AM #357077CoronitaParticipant[quote=TheBreeze][quote=gothicreader]
But back to the original argument. Was I wrong about the increase in taxes in CA? If so, please enlightened me. [/quote]Sales tax in California is going up. 1 percent. Yes, you were wrong to insinuate that anyone is going to be dissuaded from coming to California on vacation just because the sales tax has gone up 1 percent.
[/quote]Speaking of which, aren’t you against the marginal 1% tax hike? O wait, because that is something you have to pay…..
I think it’s fair. Those that consume more, pays more.
February 28, 2009 at 8:09 AM #357379CoronitaParticipant[quote=TheBreeze][quote=gothicreader]
But back to the original argument. Was I wrong about the increase in taxes in CA? If so, please enlightened me. [/quote]Sales tax in California is going up. 1 percent. Yes, you were wrong to insinuate that anyone is going to be dissuaded from coming to California on vacation just because the sales tax has gone up 1 percent.
[/quote]Speaking of which, aren’t you against the marginal 1% tax hike? O wait, because that is something you have to pay…..
I think it’s fair. Those that consume more, pays more.
February 28, 2009 at 8:09 AM #357518CoronitaParticipant[quote=TheBreeze][quote=gothicreader]
But back to the original argument. Was I wrong about the increase in taxes in CA? If so, please enlightened me. [/quote]Sales tax in California is going up. 1 percent. Yes, you were wrong to insinuate that anyone is going to be dissuaded from coming to California on vacation just because the sales tax has gone up 1 percent.
[/quote]Speaking of which, aren’t you against the marginal 1% tax hike? O wait, because that is something you have to pay…..
I think it’s fair. Those that consume more, pays more.
February 28, 2009 at 8:09 AM #357546CoronitaParticipant[quote=TheBreeze][quote=gothicreader]
But back to the original argument. Was I wrong about the increase in taxes in CA? If so, please enlightened me. [/quote]Sales tax in California is going up. 1 percent. Yes, you were wrong to insinuate that anyone is going to be dissuaded from coming to California on vacation just because the sales tax has gone up 1 percent.
[/quote]Speaking of which, aren’t you against the marginal 1% tax hike? O wait, because that is something you have to pay…..
I think it’s fair. Those that consume more, pays more.
February 28, 2009 at 8:09 AM #357656CoronitaParticipant[quote=TheBreeze][quote=gothicreader]
But back to the original argument. Was I wrong about the increase in taxes in CA? If so, please enlightened me. [/quote]Sales tax in California is going up. 1 percent. Yes, you were wrong to insinuate that anyone is going to be dissuaded from coming to California on vacation just because the sales tax has gone up 1 percent.
[/quote]Speaking of which, aren’t you against the marginal 1% tax hike? O wait, because that is something you have to pay…..
I think it’s fair. Those that consume more, pays more.
February 28, 2009 at 8:18 AM #357092felix
Participant“So for them it’s party and dogma first, country second.”
I think this type of politics is a two way street.
Dems aren’t any better at putting country first ahead of ideology.
February 28, 2009 at 8:18 AM #357394Participant“So for them it’s party and dogma first, country second.”
I think this type of politics is a two way street.
Dems aren’t any better at putting country first ahead of ideology.
February 28, 2009 at 8:18 AM #357533Participant“So for them it’s party and dogma first, country second.”
I think this type of politics is a two way street.
Dems aren’t any better at putting country first ahead of ideology.
February 28, 2009 at 8:18 AM #357562Participant“So for them it’s party and dogma first, country second.”
I think this type of politics is a two way street.
Dems aren’t any better at putting country first ahead of ideology.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.