Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
speaking of Goldman Sachs, did you know that the current CEO of Goldman Sachs has actually endorsed the Presidents plan to avoid the fiscal cliff?Debate on what?
He basically got in the right club..showed up and made moulla.
Don't try to snow me pal. I was there.
No you were not there Sallow. YToiu were not there when that guy worked his 15 hoiur days 6 days a week for 22 years at Golkdman Sachs. You were not there when, in his early 20's, while his friends were getting laid and partying, he was in the library so he can get his masters and join Goldman. You were not there when his kids wanted him to watch them in a school play, and instead he had to work late to accomodate his clients on the west coast.
You were there when he recieved the rewards for decades of hard work.
That "club" thing is earned......
There is no such thing as "trickle down" economics in the real world, Sallow. That's a misnomer coined by progressives.
The fact is profits trickle up...not the other way around. When I open a new restaurant I don't get paid first as the owner. Before that restaurant ever opens I will have to pay people to do the build out...I will pay purveyors for their goods...I will hire and train a staff to work in the establishment...I will pay for advertising and promotion. ALL of that capital will come out of my pocket LONG before I see any profits coming back in (if I ever see them at all!). Trickle down? Don't make me laugh...
the problem is, progressives ignore that part. They look at a business owners success and define them at that point moving forward.
When I started my first company, I worked 15 hour days not including my 2 hours a day commute so I could barely make a living my first year.
And as soon as I started to make money that was above what I needed? I was forced to hire people to meet the increase in demand for my services...so my second year, I barely made as much as my first year, and still had to work the long hours...and yes, the priofits started to come in by year three...as I would hire someone at 30K and get a return of 50K.....but I didnt start to enjoy some vacation time until my fourth year...and let me tell you...when you are a buisness owner...the vacations are more for the family as you are constantly in touch with the office.
Sure...now...at the age of 54 and after selling my companies, I am enjoying my life...and yes, I enjoyed my life for the past 15 years.....but that first 15 years? Stress like one can not believe.
Oh yeah...and did I mention that during my nearly 3 decades as a business owner, I employed dozens of people?
And every single one of those people got paid BEFORE you took a dime in profits...didn't they?
Progressives like Sallow have this misconception that businesses work by paying employees whatever is left over after a wealthy owner has taken what he thinks is a fair share for themselves. It's amusing. When I owned businesses I often times had to eat and sleep at them because I needed every dime I could scrape together to make payroll and keep goods coming in the door for us to sell. I was not only not getting minimum wage...I was often times dipping deep into my savings.
you are championing a guy for working a goldman to support your argument. i simply pointed out another goldman employee who supports the Obama plan, who just happens to be the CEO.speaking of Goldman Sachs, did you know that the current CEO of Goldman Sachs has actually endorsed the Presidents plan to avoid the fiscal cliff?No you were not there Sallow. YToiu were not there when that guy worked his 15 hoiur days 6 days a week for 22 years at Golkdman Sachs. You were not there when, in his early 20's, while his friends were getting laid and partying, he was in the library so he can get his masters and join Goldman. You were not there when his kids wanted him to watch them in a school play, and instead he had to work late to accomodate his clients on the west coast.
You were there when he recieved the rewards for decades of hard work.
That "club" thing is earned......
So? Many people do.
And many people dont.
Not sure of what poiint you are making.
Heck...Immelt supported Obama....and GE didnt pay a dime in taxes.....
So I am not sure why you chimed in with that.
There is no such thing as "trickle down" economics in the real world, Sallow. That's a misnomer coined by progressives.
The fact is profits trickle up...not the other way around. When I open a new restaurant I don't get paid first as the owner. Before that restaurant ever opens I will have to pay people to do the build out...I will pay purveyors for their goods...I will hire and train a staff to work in the establishment...I will pay for advertising and promotion. ALL of that capital will come out of my pocket LONG before I see any profits coming back in (if I ever see them at all!). Trickle down? Don't make me laugh...
You ever really open a restaurant?
I had a bar. And yeah..you have to do all that stuff.
It's a rich man's game. Meant to keep out the small fry.
I've been in the nightclub and restaurant business since the 1970's and I've opened a ton of places. That's why I find your concept of "trickle down" so amusing. It doesn't exist and if you owned a bar then you should KNOW that.
Actually, I wasnt intentionally championing him. Heck, I know very little about him. Sallow brought him up as an example of a guy that made 10 million dollars and failed..and implied he did nothing to warrant that 10 million dollar compensation package.....and I tried to show him how it was highly unlikely that the guy did not have a history of an outstanding work ethic; highest level of dedication; etc.you are championing a guy for working a goldman to support your argument. i simply pointed out another goldman employee who supports the Obama plan, who just happens to be the CEO.speaking of Goldman Sachs, did you know that the current CEO of Goldman Sachs has actually endorsed the Presidents plan to avoid the fiscal cliff?
So? Many people do.
And many people dont.
Not sure of what poiint you are making.
Heck...Immelt supported Obama....and GE didnt pay a dime in taxes.....
So I am not sure why you chimed in with that.
There is no such thing as "trickle down" economics in the real world, Sallow. That's a misnomer coined by progressives.
The fact is profits trickle up...not the other way around. When I open a new restaurant I don't get paid first as the owner. Before that restaurant ever opens I will have to pay people to do the build out...I will pay purveyors for their goods...I will hire and train a staff to work in the establishment...I will pay for advertising and promotion. ALL of that capital will come out of my pocket LONG before I see any profits coming back in (if I ever see them at all!). Trickle down? Don't make me laugh...
You ever really open a restaurant?
I had a bar. And yeah..you have to do all that stuff.
It's a rich man's game. Meant to keep out the small fry.
And all of that stuff takes more than just money. It takes YEARS off of your life...HOURS away from family.
It is not a rich mans game....it is the game of those willing to sacrifice.
Actually, I wasnt intentionally championing him. Heck, I know very little about him. Sallow brought him up as an example of a guy that made 10 million dollars and failed..and implied he did nothing to warrant that 10 million dollar compensation package.....and I tried to show him how it was highly unlikely that the guy did not have a history of an outstanding work ethic; highest level of dedication; etc.you are championing a guy for working a goldman to support your argument. i simply pointed out another goldman employee who supports the Obama plan, who just happens to be the CEO.So? Many people do.
And many people dont.
Not sure of what poiint you are making.
Heck...Immelt supported Obama....and GE didnt pay a dime in taxes.....
So I am not sure why you chimed in with that.
Sallow believed he "simply belonged to the club" to get where he was.
You ever really open a restaurant?
I had a bar. And yeah..you have to do all that stuff.
It's a rich man's game. Meant to keep out the small fry.
I've been in the nightclub and restaurant business since the 1970's and I've opened a ton of places. That's why I find your concept of "trickle down" so amusing. It doesn't exist and if you owned a bar then you should KNOW that.
OOoookay.
Why should I be forced to get a liquor license? Or a license to sell food? Why should I even have to open something up in a brick and mortar?
Aren't you folks "Free Marketeers"?
Why can't I just open up a liquor stand with moonshine I made in my basement?
How do you know?Actually, I wasnt intentionally championing him. Heck, I know very little about him. Sallow brought him up as an example of a guy that made 10 million dollars and failed..and implied he did nothing to warrant that 10 million dollar compensation package.....and I tried to show him how it was highly unlikely that the guy did not have a history of an outstanding work ethic; highest level of dedication; etc.you are championing a guy for working a goldman to support your argument. i simply pointed out another goldman employee who supports the Obama plan, who just happens to be the CEO.
Sallow believed he "simply belonged to the club" to get where he was.
He did.
I'll give it to someone like Dick Grasso. That guy really did work his way up through the ranks. He made way to much money..but there was much more justification for his salary.
You ever really open a restaurant?
I had a bar. And yeah..you have to do all that stuff.
It's a rich man's game. Meant to keep out the small fry.
And all of that stuff takes more than just money. It takes YEARS off of your life...HOURS away from family.
It is not a rich mans game....it is the game of those willing to sacrifice.
Dude..like my place..about 50% or those places go belly up.
I lost a pantload.
My brother tried and failed at it too.
Actually, I wasnt intentionally championing him. Heck, I know very little about him. Sallow brought him up as an example of a guy that made 10 million dollars and failed..and implied he did nothing to warrant that 10 million dollar compensation package.....and I tried to show him how it was highly unlikely that the guy did not have a history of an outstanding work ethic; highest level of dedication; etc.you are championing a guy for working a goldman to support your argument. i simply pointed out another goldman employee who supports the Obama plan, who just happens to be the CEO.
Sallow believed he "simply belonged to the club" to get where he was.
He did.
I'll give it to someone like Dick Grasso. That guy really did work his way up through the ranks. He made way to much money..but there was much more justification for his salary.
Whenever there's talk about tax rates and what the "fair share" should be for the wealthy to pay, there's always a few liberals that bring out the argument of how top marginal tax rates were as high as 94% back in 1944. This is true. They were also 91% back in 1946, and and 77% in 1964.
Now, assuming people actually payed those taxes back in the day. Here's my question;
Lets say we raised the top marginal tax rate for all income above $250k to 94%, just like they were back in the day.
If we have someone already earning $250k, what is their incentive to increase their earnings $100k for a total of $350k, if they'd only get see $6,000 of it?
Essentially only getting to keep 6 cents of every dollar earned over $250k.
Again, lets say the top marginal tax rate only affected income over $500k. What incentive would a person have to earn $600k, when in reality, they'd only see $6,000 of their newly earned income?
Back in the days of 90+% tax rates the deductions were much more lucrative as well.
Only the fucking idiot dumbocrat like BlindBoo could say something this stupid...
If you advocate for tax rates at 90%, but then advocate for "more deductions that are more lucrative", then they are not actually paying 90% and all you've accomplished is to create a shell game where complicated tax laws allow people to move and hide money all over the place.
God almight are you people stupid... It's not wonder the US is $16 trillion in debt and Barack Hussein is president.
Who has asked to raise tax rates that high? Not to mention that back then the deductions were much greater and the wealthy could deduct almost any "expense" that they pleased.Whenever there's talk about tax rates and what the "fair share" should be for the wealthy to pay, there's always a few liberals that bring out the argument of how top marginal tax rates were as high as 94% back in 1944. This is true. They were also 91% back in 1946, and and 77% in 1964.
Now, assuming people actually payed those taxes back in the day. Here's my question;
Lets say we raised the top marginal tax rate for all income above $250k to 94%, just like they were back in the day.
If we have someone already earning $250k, what is their incentive to increase their earnings $100k for a total of $350k, if they'd only get see $6,000 of it?
Essentially only getting to keep 6 cents of every dollar earned over $250k.
Again, lets say the top marginal tax rate only affected income over $500k. What incentive would a person have to earn $600k, when in reality, they'd only see $6,000 of their newly earned income?
You really should do a little studying before you start talking out of your ass.
You should really read these boards before you post... Hell TM starts a thread on 94% taxes rate or mentions it at least 94 times a week.
To the OP, the real question is if you make 250k and you pay 90% taxes you only make 25,000$ dollars take home Where as if you made 249k you would make around 217,000 take home.
At 500k you make about 50k a year take home Or you can make 249k and make around 217,000$ a year .
This is where the logic gets retarded.
You ever really open a restaurant?
I had a bar. And yeah..you have to do all that stuff.
It's a rich man's game. Meant to keep out the small fry.
I've been in the nightclub and restaurant business since the 1970's and I've opened a ton of places. That's why I find your concept of "trickle down" so amusing. It doesn't exist and if you owned a bar then you should KNOW that.
OOoookay.
Why should I be forced to get a liquor license? Or a license to sell food? Why should I even have to open something up in a brick and mortar?
Aren't you folks "Free Marketeers"?
Why can't I just open up a liquor stand with moonshine I made in my basement?
Back in the days of 90+% tax rates the deductions were much more lucrative as well.
Only the fucking idiot dumbocrat like BlindBoo could say something this stupid...
If you advocate for tax rates at 90%, but then advocate for "more deductions that are more lucrative", then they are not actually paying 90% and all you've accomplished is to create a shell game where complicated tax laws allow people to move and hide money all over the place.
God almight are you people stupid... It's not wonder the US is $16 trillion in debt and Barack Hussein is president.
Why do you think I was advocating a return to the 90% tax rate with lucrative deductions?
Back in the days of 90+% tax rates the deductions were much more lucrative as well.
But I thought the deductions, exceptions, loopholes, etc for the rich were bad?? (and they were more more lenient then)... and I thought it was bad when people find ways to skirt the rates??
So.. do those supporting this bullshit high rates want them with or without the various loopholes??
And they say Mitt Romney was a flip-flopper.
How do you know?Actually, I wasnt intentionally championing him. Heck, I know very little about him. Sallow brought him up as an example of a guy that made 10 million dollars and failed..and implied he did nothing to warrant that 10 million dollar compensation package.....and I tried to show him how it was highly unlikely that the guy did not have a history of an outstanding work ethic; highest level of dedication; etc.
Sallow believed he "simply belonged to the club" to get where he was.
He did.
I'll give it to someone like Dick Grasso. That guy really did work his way up through the ranks. He made way to much money..but there was much more justification for his salary.
Goldman was a client of mine for 20 years. I placed many an employee there. None that I knew of worked less thanj 12 hours a day...many on weekends...and yes, many moved up...
Why do you think his 22 years at Goldman were nothing but a joy ride for him? What are you basing that on?
Whenever there's talk about tax rates and what the "fair share" should be for the wealthy to pay, there's always a few liberals that bring out the argument of how top marginal tax rates were as high as 94% back in 1944. This is true. They were also 91% back in 1946, and and 77% in 1964.
Now, assuming people actually payed those taxes back in the day. Here's my question;
Lets say we raised the top marginal tax rate for all income above $250k to 94%, just like they were back in the day.
If we have someone already earning $250k, what is their incentive to increase their earnings $100k for a total of $350k, if they'd only get see $6,000 of it?
Essentially only getting to keep 6 cents of every dollar earned over $250k.
Again, lets say the top marginal tax rate only affected income over $500k. What incentive would a person have to earn $600k, when in reality, they'd only see $6,000 of their newly earned income?
Back in the days of 90+% tax rates the deductions were much more lucrative as well.
Whenever there's talk about tax rates and what the "fair share" should be for the wealthy to pay, there's always a few liberals that bring out the argument of how top marginal tax rates were as high as 94% back in 1944. This is true. They were also 91% back in 1946, and and 77% in 1964.
Now, assuming people actually payed those taxes back in the day. Here's my question;
Lets say we raised the top marginal tax rate for all income above $250k to 94%, just like they were back in the day.
If we have someone already earning $250k, what is their incentive to increase their earnings $100k for a total of $350k, if they'd only get see $6,000 of it?
Essentially only getting to keep 6 cents of every dollar earned over $250k.
Again, lets say the top marginal tax rate only affected income over $500k. What incentive would a person have to earn $600k, when in reality, they'd only see $6,000 of their newly earned income?
Whenever there's talk about tax rates and what the "fair share" should be for the wealthy to pay, there's always a few liberals that bring out the argument of how top marginal tax rates were as high as 94% back in 1944. This is true. They were also 91% back in 1946, and and 77% in 1964.
Now, assuming people actually payed those taxes back in the day. Here's my question;
Lets say we raised the top marginal tax rate for all income above $250k to 94%, just like they were back in the day.
If we have someone already earning $250k, what is their incentive to increase their earnings $100k for a total of $350k, if they'd only get see $6,000 of it?
Essentially only getting to keep 6 cents of every dollar earned over $250k.
Again, lets say the top marginal tax rate only affected income over $500k. What incentive would a person have to earn $600k, when in reality, they'd only see $6,000 of their newly earned income?
Back in the days of 90+% tax rates the deductions were much more lucrative as well.
