I don't know why I attempt to argue basic economics with people who very little about it. You win, man. Your dude, won & it's all good. When we fall of the cliff, I'm sure it will still be the ruch people's fault...or Bush's..
I don't know why I attempt to argue basic economics with people who very little about it. You win, man. Your dude, won & it's all good. When we fall of the cliff, I'm sure it will still be the ruch people's fault...or Bush's..
GenericID wrote:how's about we give raising the marginal rates a smidge
how about not?
i don't care if taxes were raised by one penny. it's the rationality behind it that bothers me. why should all rich people be forced to move closer to a communistic average? i'm for opportunity. i'm fine if a neighbor on my block became "lucky" and started raking in the dough from a successful business.
on the flipside, i wouldn't mind paying 70% in taxes if we were fighting nazis in world war 3, but there are unjust wars currently in my opinion with billions of dollars being spent on them.
brownsmith76 wrote:
on the flipside, i wouldn't mind paying 70% in taxes if we were fighting nazis in world war 3
And what about the people that do mind? Those people that are having their property excised against their will?
GenericID wrote:
And the big problem with your logic is that you think the federal government can do a better job managing our money than my wife and I can.I don't have to think it, after seeing your posts on here, I KNOW it!
It's called municipal bonds.
You know, it has long been popular with the right-of-center crowd to blame the debt crisis which precipitated this mess on overextended domestic borrowers, but it is worth pointing out that municipal bonds, backed by debt swaps (as they all are) were at least as responsible for the financial black hole we are dealing with as domestic debt.
In short, municipal bonds aren't the panacea you imagine.
The wealthy are holding up this system.
If that were true (which it isn't) then they aren't doing a very good job, despite the historically low tax rates, now are they?
We've been trying it your way since 2000, how's about we give raising the marginal rates a smidge, redistributing some of the wealth and getting some more people into the tax base? It's worked before.
You know what....you'll probably get your way. Taxes will increase on us. Let's see what happens. I bet you that 650 billion dollars of extra revenue over the next 10 years is not going to produce the outcome you think you are going to see.
Also, you get more people back into the tax base by getting them off unemployment and welfare. Crack down on welfare eligibility, and create some jobs for the unemployed. Many people do want to work...they simply do not have the opportunity as businesses are penalized for creating and keeping jobs in the U.S. Bring down that corporate tax rate.
Also, you get more people back into the tax base by getting them off unemployment and welfare.
Something we can agree on there - the problem is that, despite what you say about businesses being penalized for creating jobs in the US (which simply isn't true - the biggest problem for US business is the cost of hiring. The trouble is that it costs so much to get a degree in the US that the graduates can't afford to work for any less, but the companies can hire 10 graduates in India (where it costs nothing to get a degree) for the price of one US graduate. No company is going to ignore that kind of math.) the corporate tax rate has nothing to do with it.
Reform of the education system is the highest priority - the trouble is it would take so long to see the results that no sane politician will do it. If Universities were free to go to but had much higher entrance standards like India (I went to University in the US and the UK, and believe me undergraduates in the US are barely literate in comparison even to those in the UK, let alone India where the entrance exams are seriously harsh.) and we got rid of a lot of the "junk" degrees, then graduates could afford to start at much lower salaries - then companies could afford to employ more Americans.
We could make all the low paying jobs anyone could ask for, but that isn't going to get the economy buzzing - we need good quality, secure, high-paying jobs, which just aren't being created fast enough.
Hopefully, if the tax exemptions do expire, we'll see some of that money go where it should - I'm not hopeful, but we need to see what'll happen before we criticize.
You want to talk about the biggest waste in government spending... how about the interest on our debt. We MUST get our debt down because it will soon take a larger and larger percentage of the federal budget and it won't produce anything for our people. We have been kicking the can down the road for so long and people have always complained that our children are going to have to pay for it. Guess what? We are the hypothetical children that have to start paying it off. Right now we have a choice to cut spending and/ or raise taxes but soon there won't be a choice. It will be forced on us. If you think the failure of Greece is bad, how about if America defaults on its loans. That won't be a recession or a depression. It will be something we have never experienced before because so many countries/ people rely on America.
Rich people are complaining they shouldn't pay 3% more in taxes, middle class people say they can't afford anything, there are deserving people who actually use government services (for every deadbeat, there are thousands of people who use government and help themselves become more productive) elderly would have difficulty taking care of themselves and all of us absolutely need our government to provide basic services that we don't even think about.
We ALL need to come together and stop these misrepresentations of facts that our leaders are throwing at us just so they can get their "base" to support them. I have been studying this issue a great deal recently and am not an economist, but for every number one side throws out, the other side has a counter argument. But doesn't it make the most sense to take a little for all of us to get this debt under control? We can't wait another four years.
Jeff, ignore him, he's an idiot.
We MUST get our debt down because it will soon take a larger and larger percentage of the federal budget and it won't produce anything for our people.
I agree, but here's the Catch-22, if you will: the more "austerity" the lower the GDP; the lower the GDP the less chance of creating a surplus to start paying down the debt with; the lower the GDP the larger percentage of GDP is consumed by servicing our debt; the higher percentage of GDP used to service the debt the more people call for "austerity" to bring down the debt!
This has the making of the greatest troll thread of all time.
You need to start off with a believable yet likely made up scenario.
And make on on a very devisive topic.
Have to have a good headline. A good username is a nice touch.
Inflamatory language is a must.
For starters: "We make 250,000/year. I'm not a f***ing billionaire"
250K, not a billionare. Who even called you a billionare?
Always good to throw in a "f***ing" for attention.
"don't tax the rich" - He claims he's not rich so he must be defending someone else.
This looks like someone who jumps up and says "I didn't do it" when no one even accused him of doing anything.
"I understand that something needs to be done to reduce the debt in the country, but taxing people like me is NOT the way to do it."
All kinds of good stuff here.
First of all, the way he describes his situation, he is not in line for increased taxes.
And he agrees there is a debt problem but doesn't want to help.
Of course the whole tax rate thing is really at the heart of all politcal differences - so this presses the biggest hot button out there. Bound to get a load of responses.
And how does he conclude the original post?
"F*** off Barack Obama."
Not too subtle. Jam it down their throats.
Getting this started on a Saturday was a nice touch. Usually low volume for posts and new subjects.
Get this man a Lestrun T-shirt and a mug or something.
Bravo. Well done.
married up wrote:
Sure, they invested. But the 1990s economy would have been even stronger with lower tax rates. More money for them to invest.
You should have read more Sherlock Holmes as a kid. You seem to be twisting facts to suit theories instead of changing your theories to suit facts.
This has the making of the greatest troll thread of all time.
Let's not get carried away. He's made a good start, but he's not even close yet - I've not been here long, but I can remember the Osama bin Laden thread, and I've heard stories of others at least as "good" as that one.
phiwho40 wrote:
Obama is the worst president in the history of our country. All of you that vote for him should be proud!
And you say that IMMEDIATELY after 8 years of Bush. Wow.
More proof that fairly wealthy people are often just not that bright.
attack of the zombie fetuses wrote:
I don't know why I attempt to argue basic economics with people who very little about it. You win, man. Your dude, won & it's all good. When we fall of the cliff, I'm sure it will still be the ruch people's fault...or Bush's..
I don't know why idiots like ^ that moron claim to be such an expert. Hey dumb a$$ don't you think the CBO knows more about economics than you do?
This thread has the formula down and some good ingredients.
Nearing 500 posts and it is only Monday morning.
Some good troll threads are a bit toungue in cheek and have some in on the joke and some taking it seriously.
No real joking here.
People are serious about their replies.
And the base is an unwinnable argument that'll go on forever.
It's a matter of whether people will choose to keep the argument here or bring it back up on other threads.
This could remain the go-to thread for tax debates.
Endless potential.
It just needs some name calling and immature posts.
It's a bit too civil so far.
Jeff Wigand wrote:
sub3over40 wrote:The problem is not employees will turn down the hypothetical pay raise. The problem is that employers may not work as hard or take as much risk.
Is that what happened in the 1990s? Did employers take fewer risks because of Clinton's tax hike? XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Clinton cut the capital gains tax and we had technology revolution that propelled the economy. We also cut spending and got to a balance budget which gave business confidence. That is no happening now.
sub3over40 wrote:
They may do everything they can to keep their income below 250K. They may figure with federal of 39.6%, new ObamaCare Tax of 4.3% not to mention state and local that it is not worth the risk. They may lose money but if they win, the government takes half. In that case, there is no winner.
Could you explain this to me? Let's say, for example, you're making $250,000 per year like the original poster. And let's say, Obama gets his way, and income above $250,000 is taxed at 39.6%, as it was in the 1990s. And then you're offered a new job that pays $500,000 per year. What do you do?
sub3over40 wrote:
Most of these people are working their rear ends off and don't want to work harder to support other people who have made different choices.
What poor choices did they make and what would you advise Americans to do? Should every American go to a top 25 university and get an MBA or a JD? No one should drive a cab? No one should work retail?
sub3over40 wrote:
So you get the mooches on the low doing nothing and people on the top end doing less. This make the economy less efficient and everyone poorer. This mean less jobs for everyone and more takers living off the system.
How common is this? How much money is being wasted on people taking advantage of unemployment insurance versus the amount that's wasted on unnecessary DoD spending?
sub3over40 wrote:
Everyone is discussing this as if the people affected are robots that will do the same thing no matter the tax rate is . This is not how our system is supposed to work and it won't work.
Hasn't the CBO said as much?
[quote[Reuters wrote:
WASHINGTON, Nov 8 (Reuters) - Allowing income tax rates to rise for wealthy Americans would not hurt U.S. economic growth much in 2013 if Congress extends expiring tax rates on lower income levels, the Congressional Budget Office said on Thursday.
In a report expected to fuel Democrats' post-election demands for higher taxes on the rich, the CBO said extending all of the Bush-era tax cuts, along with changes to the Alternative Minimum Tax, would boost U.S. gross domestic product growth by 1.5 percentage points, compared to letting these rates snap back to prior levels.
If the tax rates were extended only for individuals earning less than $200,000 and couples earnings less than $250,000, CBO said growth would rise by 1.25 percent -- just a quarter point less than extending all of the cuts.
sub3over40 wrote:
Most of the wealthy have home overseas and they are treated better there than they are here.
Where are these places?
sub3over40 wrote:
I think even Obama voters know in their hearts that the country is in terrible shape but they figured that they might as well grab as much free stuff as they can while the party lasts.
You're saying that the 61,814,180 Americans that voted for Obama last week did so because they want freebies? I know people with household incomes over $1 million per year that wrote checks to Obama's campaign. What freebies are they getting?
sub3over40 wrote:
Romney would have kept us on the same course.
I think worse. The vast majority of economists I've read have said that spending cuts alone will not fix the problem. And Romney was going to jack up the Pentagon's budget for no reason other than to appeal to red meat concerns.[/quote]
You are getting ready to see if your theories are correct. You are a common poster here on Lets Run. I will find you when it blows up so you can explain what happened. I look forward to your excuses and explanations when that happens. I have two business to run and took a mental vacation this weekend but I have to get back to my businesses. I am already in discussions with buyers to get out clean. I won't be a slave. See you on the other side. Last post on this thread.
And just before I post my point about needing name calling someone wrote "moron" and dumb A$$".
Benjamin Franklin of LRC wrote:
I am a person who doesn't accept contradictions like "nobody knows the answer, but here's the answer anyway."
I am also a person who is committed first and foremost to intellectual honesty.
HA HA HA HA HA HA F-cking hilarious!! I love you libertarian crackpots that are 100% driven by ideology plain and simple, and not in the least by "honesty" or "intellect". Funny stuff. Benjamin Franklin would be rolling over in his grave if he knew a clown like you was using his name to represent such BS. There is strong proof that Franklin SUPPORTED a progressive taxation and higher taxes on the rich, quite contrary to your viewpoints. You are an ignoramus that knows nothing of the people you claim provide the intellectual underpinnings of your arguments.
Read this on Ben Franklin and progressive taxation.
(A may be a little challenging for you but, I have confidence you can skim through and pretend it doesn't prove what I have said about Ben Franklin.)
http://www.balloon-juice.com/2010/11/06/how-the-founding-fathers-taxed-the-country-andor-i-would-seriously-have-ben-franklins-baby/And here is a quote from Franklin on the merits of progressive taxation found through google books:
http://books.google.com/books?id=L64OOJGaCKIC&pg=PA105&lpg=PA105&dq=benjamin+franklin+on+progressive+taxation&source=bl&ots=5_nHUZ1Nbk&sig=suQyiW_V-9j0J92M3nGLzRIaN7E&hl=en&sa=X&ei=KhOhUJyMOpHvrAG5kYG4Aw&ved=0CFUQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=benjamin%20franklin%20on%20progressive%20taxation&f=falseSo stop using the name of someone who doesn't represent your views and who would be appalled that such an intellectually lazy idiot like yourself fashions himself a modern version of himself. You sir, ARE NO BEN FRANKLIN.
sub3over40 wrote:
system. Everyone is discussing this as if the people affected are robots that will do the same thing no matter the tax rate is . This is not how our system is supposed to work and it won't work. People will start shrugging and you get a death spiral. Many people believe that is getting ready to happen. Successful people are international and there are places that are now more business friendly than the US. Most of the wealthy have home overseas and they are treated better there than they are here.
So much nonsense, so little time to refute it:
1) As pointed out to you AD NAUSEUM, Obama is proposing tax rates on the rich equal to the Clinton years, the one time we recently had a SURPLUS. The economy flourished, the rich did great. So much for your imaginary 'death spiral'
2) This idea that US corporate tax rates are incredibly high is nonsense. When looking at overall rates that corporations pay, the us corporate tax rate is neither historically high, or internationally high. And as far as low corporate tax rates being a cure all for getting an economy booming, what happened to "the Ireland miracle" ? I don't notice you righties bringing up Ireland so much these days
3) the wealthy are "treated better overseas than here" ?? So "SOCIALIST Europe" is the place to be, huh? Maybe we should be more like them after all if the rich like it so much there
sub3over40 wrote:I think even Obama voters know in their hearts that the country is in terrible shape but they figured that they might as well grab as much free stuff as they can while the party lasts. That is the only thing I took away from Tuesday. I am not a partisan.
Of course "people only voted for Obama so they could more free stuff" is the "ONLY thing you took away from the election." No one should be surprised that a simpleton like yourself would have such a simplistic, knee-jerk, biased, right-wing talking point "take-away", from a very complex situation. You guys were also dead sure that the "polls were oversampling dems and would be wrong," because, well because, that's what every right winger was saying. Do you echo chamber guys EVER get tired of getting bad information and simply repeating it? Because you are doing it yet again.
You are "not a partisan". Good one! but don't quite your day job.
brownsmith76 wrote:
i don't think anyone should be forced to stoop down to your own average, economic level.
i think it's better to have a possibility, a chance for anyone to get lucky and make millions, than to have no chance at all with everyone stuck in a neo-communism society.
i don't like how a teenage justin bieber is possibly making more money than all of us posters here combined, but i also wouldn't want to take his money away either. not everyone gets to live that dream, but as long as the opportunity is there for some of my fellow americans to achieve, then i'm for it.
i don't think higher taxes is the answer.
Excellent straw man. Virtually NO ONE is saying "let's make EVERYone equal in their wealth." And virtually no one is saying: "we can't have a society where Justin Beiber or Michael Jordan make 100's of millions of $'s for being a pop star or playing a sport." NO ONE IS SAYING: take away almost all their $ (as you suggest).
No one is saying: GW Bush can't be become super-rich despite being a drunken frat boy failed businessman his whole life, then a failed president.
No one is saying the Walton heirs collectively (who simply inherited their wealth) can't become richer than Bill Gates and Warren Buffet combined.
No one is saying Kim Kardashian can't become mega-rich by simply by being attractive, having a nice round booty, and being a literal and figurative media slut
No one is saying that the Ann Coulters and Sean Hannitys and Rish Limbaughs can't become obscenely wealthy by simply spewing hate, inaccuracies, and dividing america.
No one is saying that the current Kennedy's can not become obscenely wealthy from their inheritances and living off the family name.
No one is saying: we should never have people wealthier than millions of americans' wealth combined.
What people ARE SAYING IS: stop elevating these people as your bettors and labeling them as the "producers" and the "makers" of the world, and as being inherently "smarter" and "harder working" than average americans who you then simultaneously put down and spit on as moochers and idiots good-for-nothings. STOP THE NONSENSE. It is not correct, and is insulting.
Further, people are saying: these extremely wealthy people I listed (and more) can afford to pay a little more in income taxes so this country can continue to function as a great nation, and the poorest americans can have at least a fighting chance to get out of the lowest income brackets. The end.
Is that such a horrible thing to advocate?? No it's not.
You REALLY think that if the rich go back to paying the tax rates of the Clinton years, that will be the end of obsenely rich pop stars, athletes, heirs, and investors??
Please. Nothing remotely like that happened, nor will happen. There will always be an absurdly large gap between the super rich and the poor in this country. If you like that way, don't worry, it ain't going away at all. But by dropping that gap a teeny, weeny, bit, it will likely do EVERYONE in this country, rich and poor, some good.
500!