Companies do not pay taxes

[Koios]

Last time I looked your team wears "Corporations are not people" on their jerseys.
How could Jobs or Gates or anyone ever invent anything?

As for part two, you might note that neither Jobs nor Gates were (Jobs) / are (Gates) inventors. They developed products based on technology invented by others, with more than a little help from government-funded R&D. Computers and microprocessors, obviously, predates Apple; and the basic for the Altair computer that Gates and Allen wrote used tech and a programming language which predates them.

Does that help?

So Gates and Jobs invented nothing.
Amazing.

Nothing that comes to mind. It seems that they developed stuff based on others inventions, such as the GUI that Xerox PARC invented which inspired the first Macintosh.

But perhaps you recall some of their inventions? If so, do share.

 

[Gadawg73]

As usual the liberal has it ass backerds.
It is up to you to prove to us that raising taxes HAS EVER made things better.
And you can't because it never does.

So, Gadawg, you can not name a time when cutting taxes during a bad economy has ever helped. So now you want me to name the OPPOSITE? But Gadawg, that is too easy:
Roosevelt during the great republican depression of 1928.
Reagan after the highest unemployment since the great depression in 82.
Clinton at the beginning of his administration.

So, there you go. Turns out it always does, Gadawg. Your turn, dipshit.

Roosevelt was not President in 1928.
Dumb ass.
At no time ever has raising taxes solved a budget deficit.
You do know we have a budget deficit, don't you?
Punk.

Well, dipshit, the depression was on its way in '28, but got really bad in 29. Did you think there were two Great Republican Depressions, dipshit. There was only one depression ever. And in all cases, the economy got better after tax increases. And in all cases, there were deficits. And I said DURRING. You need to look up that word. The depression was going strong when Roosevelt took office, in March of 1933. After over 3 years of no stimulus by the repub president. Hoover, old boy. Finally did a stimulus at the end of his term, as even he knew he had to.

Then, you mention deficit. The fact is, dipshit, that deficits never get better when unemployment is high. Look at history, if you are capable. Then, you may want to consider Clinton's admin. There was indeed a deficit. He did indeed raise taxes. And Unemployment went down. And the deficit went away. And we had a SURPLUS. So, since your interest is in deficits, show a time when deficits got better with a tax decrease during a bad economy.
But then, you can not. Because you just post DOGMA. Dipshit.

And yes I do know we have a deficit, dipshit. The Surplus went away when Bush 2 gave the surplus back to the taxpayers and he then created a large deficit. Dipshit.

Hoover raised taxes in 1932, the top rate from 25%-63%, you fool.
As a result of that tax hike tax revenues DROPPED from 831 million in 1931 to 427 million in 1932 as tax increases always cause revenues to drop. Less investment and producers put their $$ in tax free investments such as municipal bonds where there is NO tax.
Hoover supported Smoot Hawley tarrifs BOTH REPUBLICANS, which raised taxes further under Hoover and those import tarrifs sent the economy downward even further. Taxes on imports always hurt revenues as it makes it almost.impossible to sell our own products overseas.
1945 Truman lowered taxes and the economy went wild.
1997 Clinton cut taxes and the economy boomed.
The evidence always is that tax cuts always increase the economy and jobs.
Pick another subject.

 

[Rshermr]

So Gadawg says:

Hoover raised taxes in 1932, the top rate from 25%-63%, you fool.

Who is a fool? Did you just discover that tax increase? That is why I said even hoover figured it out toward the end of his term. When unemployment was on its way toward 25%. And Hoover, as I said, recognized the need to raise taxes.

As a result of that tax hike tax revenues DROPPED from 831 million in 1931 to 427 million in 1932 as tax increases always cause revenues to drop. Less investment and producers put their $$ in tax free investments such as municipal bonds where there is NO tax.

Sorry, dipshit. Unemployment was going up like a rocket, which is what destroyed government revenues. Did you expect that the unemployed were going to continue to pay taxes, dipshit? And do you not see unemployment as a problem in a depression, dipshit??
Here is a little education, should you be capable of understanding:

Year Rate
1928 4.2
1930 8.7
1932 23.6
The great depression was in full swing by 1930. It was at its worst in 1933, but dropping at the end of that year. As a result of stimulus spending.

Strike 1, dipshit.
Read more: United States Unemployment Rate 1920–2010 — Infoplease.com United States Unemployment Rate 1920–2010 — Infoplease.com

Hoover supported Smoot Hawley tarrifs BOTH REPUBLICANS, which raised taxes further under Hoover and those import tarrifs sent the economy downward even further. Taxes on imports always hurt revenues as it makes it almost.impossible to sell our own products overseas.

A nonsensical statement, for which you have no proof. Obviously. Nice try, dipshit.
Strike 2, dipshit.

1945 Truman lowered taxes and the economy went wild.

There was no tax decrease in 1945. The economy was going wild because of this thing that you may not have heard of. Called World War II. You know, when EVERYONE that could be employed was employed. As it was in 1946 when there WAS a tax decrease. So you have no example where taxes were decreased during a bad economy with high unemployment. I would say nice try, but it was not.

Year Rate
1944 1.2
1946 3.9
1948 3.8
Same source as above.

Did you notice that the question was can you ever show a time when tax decreases helped a BAD economy. You know, high unemployment and a tax decrease. Get it yet? So far you obviously can not.
Strike 3, dipshit.

1997 Clinton cut taxes and the economy boomed.

There was NO tax decrease in 1997. So, Clinton INCREASES taxes in 1992. Unemployment went from 7.5% down to 4.9% between 92 and 97. So, nice try. And the economy was doing great. Lying again, dipshit??
Strike 4, dipshit.

The evidence always is that tax cuts always increase the economy and jobs.

So you say. But you are completely wrong. Five pitches, five swings, five strikes. Which is why you can show no cases where a bad economy with high unemployment has been helped by a tax decrease. Just a few lies, and an apparent inability to understand what a bad economy is. And, by the way, dipshit, lowering taxes during a decent to great economy may be a good thing. No argument there. But that was not the question. And all the lying you care to do will not change that fact. So, I assume you are done trying to prove that idea.

So, can you show a time when raising taxes during a bad economy has hurt the economy?? You may want to consider carefully before you try, because so far you are not doing well.

 

[Gadawg73]

Raising taxes produces more government and less private sector investment.
Econ 101 for dummies.
Less investment in private sector means less jobs.
More taxes to government always means more spending.
Which means they ask FOR MORE taxes.
That is where we are now. We borrow 45 cents of every dollar we spend as government is bloated and needs an immediate 30% cut across the board.

 

[Rshermr]

Raising taxes produces more government and less private sector investment.
Econ 101 for dummies.
Less investment in private sector means less jobs.
More taxes to government always means more spending.
Which means they ask FOR MORE taxes.
That is where we are now. We borrow 45 cents of every dollar we spend as government is bloated and needs an immediate 30% cut across the board.

Raising taxes produces more government and less private sector investment.

Really. And that is why you can not name a single case where that has occurred.

Econ 101 for dummies.

Sorry, it is not. But then, you have never taken Econ 101.

Less investment in private sector means less jobs.

Yup. And if you use the tax revenue for stimulus spending you get MORE investment in the private sector. Econ 101. And yes, I have taken it.
And yes, that is what the cons said when Clinton raised taxes and increased spending in '93. And looked like idiots shortly thereafter.

More taxes to government always means more spending.

Depends. Usually that is so. But not necessarily.

Which means they ask FOR MORE taxes.

Who is they? Depends. But in general, "they" nearly always ask for more revenue. Not necessarily taxes. Because they feed their constituency. So, is that supposed to be something new?

That is where we are now. We borrow 45 cents of every dollar we spend as government is bloated and needs an immediate 30% cut across the board.

That is not the reason. the reason is that we have insufficient incoming revenue, primarily. And if you want to see a real depression, then do a 30% cut across the board. Really, really stupid. And, by the way, the party doing so would be as popular with the voters as a fart in church. Really, really, really stupid. You must be a tea party member, cause god know you are dumb.

 

[Gadawg73]

Raising taxes produces more government and less private sector investment.
Econ 101 for dummies.
Less investment in private sector means less jobs.
More taxes to government always means more spending.
Which means they ask FOR MORE taxes.
That is where we are now. We borrow 45 cents of every dollar we spend as government is bloated and needs an immediate 30% cut across the board.

Raising taxes produces more government and less private sector investment.

Really. And that is why you can not name a single case where that has occurred.

Sorry, it is not. But then, you have never taken Econ 101.




Yup. And if you use the tax revenue for stimulus spending you get MORE investment in the private sector. Econ 101. And yes, I have taken it.
And yes, that is what the cons said when Clinton raised taxes and increased spending in '93. And looked like idiots shortly thereafter.


Depends. Usually that is so. But not necessarily.

Which means they ask FOR MORE taxes.

Who is they? Depends. But in general, "they" nearly always ask for more revenue. Not necessarily taxes. Because they feed their constituency. So, is that supposed to be something new?

That is where we are now. We borrow 45 cents of every dollar we spend as government is bloated and needs an immediate 30% cut across the board.

That is not the reason. the reason is that we have insufficient incoming revenue, primarily. And if you want to see a real depression, then do a 30% cut across the board. Really, really stupid. And, by the way, the party doing so would be as popular with the voters as a fart in church. Really, really, really stupid. You must be a tea party member, cause god know you are dumb.

MBA Georgia State University 1985
Owner of 3 corporations.
We have insufficient incoming revenue because taxes are too high and as a result of that I have put 400K in municipal bonds over the last 4 years. TAX FREE income I get every month. Everyone else with a brain does the same thing. We pay NO TAX on that.
Democrats oppose changing the tax code. Republicans stand for it.
Lower taxes and investors KNOW where they stand. Obama's policies of tax the rich to "pay their fair share" LEAVES UNCERTAINTY among investors so they DO NOT know what their tax rates, A FIXED COST IN THEIR OPERATIONS, will be so they sit on their $$$ or invest it in tax free areas.

WELL DUH!

 

[Rshermr]

So Gadawg says;

MBA Georgia State University 1985

Mine is MBA, Oregon state University in '71
BA in Economics '69

Owner of 3 corporations.

Sole ownership corporation, which would signify a type S typically, and small in size.

We have insufficient incoming revenue because taxes are too high and as a result of that I have put 400K in municipal bonds over the last 4 years.

So, you say you have insufficient income because of taxes. But, I know that you are paying less taxes than at any time since the early 50's unless you are brain dead. So, not sure why your problem is taxes. I would be more inclined to believe your problem is lack of sales. That is, lack of demand.

TAX FREE income I get every month. Everyone else with a brain does the same thing. We pay NO TAX on that.

Most people who invest to any degree would disagree with you. Tax free bonds typically have too small a return to be as good an investment as compared to normal stocks and bonds. So, I would take that as your opinion. Or that you simply do not want to pay taxes, no matter what.

Democrats oppose changing the tax code. Republicans stand for it.

Dems do not oppose changing the tax code. They simply do not believe that the winners should be the wealthy, as do repubs.

Lower taxes and investors KNOW where they stand. Obama's policies of tax the rich to "pay their fair share" LEAVES UNCERTAINTY among investors so they DO NOT know what their tax rates, A FIXED COST IN THEIR OPERATIONS, will be so they sit on their $$$ or invest it in tax free areas.

So, they are now paying taxes at lower rates than in decades. Still bitching about obama raising their rates. And if they see the tax increase that Obama wants, they will pay the same rates as during the Clinton admin. You know, when they had a booming economy and an honest to goodness SURPLUS. But you are asking for more tax decreases, like W, who gave you the worst economy since the great depression. And those great tax decreases that you can not find a single case of, where, during a bad economy, those tax decreases have helped. You keep saying they help, but they never ever do for very obvious reasons. Which apparently are unable to fathom.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So, they are now paying taxes at lower rates than in decades.

Of course thats idiotic and perfectly liberal given the the top 1% pay 40% of all income taxes while they paid only 23% under Reagan and given that our top 1% pay a higher percent than any other civilized country in the world!!

you can not find a single case of, where, during a bad economy, those tax decreases have helped.

too stupid and 100% liberal. Tax decreases always help since they expand the private sector which is 100% responsible for improving the economy.

It's like proclaiming that chocking a man helps him breath!! If there's a theory out there explaining how choking or taxing the economy helps it grow why be so afraid to share it with us????

 

[Rshermr]

So, they are now paying taxes at lower rates than in decades.

Of course thats idiotic and perfectly liberal given the the top 1% pay 40% of all income taxes while they paid only 23% under Reagan and given that our top 1% pay a higher percent than any other civilized country in the world!!

you can not find a single case of, where, during a bad economy, those tax decreases have helped.

too stupid and 100% liberal. Tax decreases always help since they expand the private sector which is 100% responsible for improving the economy.

It's like proclaiming that chocking a man helps him breath!! If there's a theory out there explaining how choking or taxing the economy helps it grow why be so afraid to share it with us????

So, ed says share "with us" which proves that he suffers from schizophrenia. Which should be no surprise to anyone.

 

[Gadawg73]

When taxes go up I invest none of my capital and sit on it placing it in TAX FREE municipal bonds.
NO revenue going to government times millions of folks just like me.
When taxes go down I invest my capital in capital projects, hire employees to do those jobs and the economy grows. Increased revenues times millions of folks just like me PLUS all of the employees our capital we invested hires.
Low taxes always grows the economy and higher taxes always slows capital moving into investment.
Anyone with 1 hour of business school knows that PRIVATE CAPITAL is the life blood of economic growth.
More taxes for more and growing government equals less private capital for investment. Econ 101 for dummies.

 

[Rshermr]

So Gawdag says the following easily refuted nonsence.

When taxes go up I invest none of my capital and sit on it placing it in TAX FREE municipal bonds.

Good for you. It is, as they say, your money, after all. However, you seem to be a bit inconsistent. Because you say you are doing that now. And today, we have taxes lower than any time since the early 50's. So that says you are lying. There is some other reason for putting your money in tax free muni's.

"Bruce Bartlett, former adviser to President Reagan, runs some numbers on taxes in the United States and finds a result that is counter-intuitive given the state of debate:
Historically, the term “tax rate” has meant the average or effective tax rate — that is, taxes as a share of income. The broadest measure of the tax rate is total federal revenues divided by the gross domestic product.
By this measure, federal taxes are at their lowest level in more than 60 years. The Congressional Budget Officeestimated that federal taxes would consume just 14.8 percent of G.D.P. this year. The last year in which revenues were lower was 1950, according to the Office of Management and Budget.
The postwar annual average is about 18.5 percent of G.D.P. Revenues averaged 18.2 percent of G.D.P. during Ronald Reagan‘s administration; the lowest percentage during that administration was 17.3 percent of G.D.P. in 1984.
In short, by the broadest measure of the tax rate, the current level is unusually low and has been for some time. Revenues were 14.9 percent of G.D.P. in both 2009 and 2010."
Federal Taxes At Lowest Rate Since 1950

So, I say you are posting bullshit, me boy.

NO revenue going to government times millions of folks just like me.

When taxes go down I invest my capital in capital projects, hire employees to do those jobs and the economy grows.

So, let me get this straight. If there is demand for your product, and the tax rate is too high, then you will not sell your product. And therefor you will not need to grow your company, and you will not need to hire people to work for you. But, on the other hand, if taxes are low but there is little demand for your product, then you will produce lots of it. Even though you can not sell it. Because you ...what, like to build inventory? I call bullshit on you. You are simply a lying con tool.

Increased revenues times millions of folks just like me PLUS all of the employees our capital we invested hires.

So, when reagan lowered taxes the unemployment rate went to the highest ever outside of the great depression. Must have missed something, my con tool. Cause you can not show a single case where what you just said has happened. Why if you are so sure that it does happen, are you so completely unable to show where decreasing taxes in a bad economy helps that economy. Want to try again. You failed miserably last time. And you will again this time, because it does not work. Econ 101, Simple stuff.

Low taxes always grows the economy and higher taxes always slows capital moving into investment.

Yes, so you say. But you can not show it happening, because it never does. Try, try again, dipshit.

Anyone with 1 hour of business school knows that PRIVATE CAPITAL is the life blood of economic growth.

Yes it is, in a good economy. In a bad economy, that private capital goes away, so that lifeblood you are talking about is a trickle.

More taxes for more and growing government equals less private capital for investment. Econ 101 for dummies.

Ignorant statement. It is not more taxes to grow government. That is simply a con talking point. More taxes are to raise revenue for stimulus spending, to get the economy moving. As clinton did in establishing a growing and vital economy. And as Reagan did when his policies of low taxes drove up the ue rate to the second highest rate outside of the great depression. He raised taxes 11 times, and borrowed enough to triple the national debt. And used stimulus spending to get the economy moving again. Econ 101. Not for dummies. That, apparently, is your version of economics.

 

[Gadawg73]

So Gawdag says the following easily refuted nonsence.

When taxes go up I invest none of my capital and sit on it placing it in TAX FREE municipal bonds.

Good for you. It is, as they say, your money, after all. However, you seem to be a bit inconsistent. Because you say you are doing that now. And today, we have taxes lower than any time since the early 50's. So that says you are lying. There is some other reason for putting your money in tax free muni's.

"Bruce Bartlett, former adviser to President Reagan, runs some numbers on taxes in the United States and finds a result that is counter-intuitive given the state of debate:
Historically, the term “tax rate” has meant the average or effective tax rate — that is, taxes as a share of income. The broadest measure of the tax rate is total federal revenues divided by the gross domestic product.
By this measure, federal taxes are at their lowest level in more than 60 years. The Congressional Budget Officeestimated that federal taxes would consume just 14.8 percent of G.D.P. this year. The last year in which revenues were lower was 1950, according to the Office of Management and Budget.
The postwar annual average is about 18.5 percent of G.D.P. Revenues averaged 18.2 percent of G.D.P. during Ronald Reagan‘s administration; the lowest percentage during that administration was 17.3 percent of G.D.P. in 1984.
In short, by the broadest measure of the tax rate, the current level is unusually low and has been for some time. Revenues were 14.9 percent of G.D.P. in both 2009 and 2010."
Federal Taxes At Lowest Rate Since 1950

So, I say you are posting bullshit, me boy.

NO revenue going to government times millions of folks just like me.

When taxes go down I invest my capital in capital projects, hire employees to do those jobs and the economy grows.

So, let me get this straight. If there is demand for your product, and the tax rate is too high, then you will not sell your product. And therefor you will not need to grow your company, and you will not need to hire people to work for you. But, on the other hand, if taxes are low but there is little demand for your product, then you will produce lots of it. Even though you can not sell it. Because you ...what, like to build inventory? I call bullshit on you. You are simply a lying con tool.


So, when reagan lowered taxes the unemployment rate went to the highest ever outside of the great depression. Must have missed something, my con tool. Cause you can not show a single case where what you just said has happened. Why if you are so sure that it does happen, are you so completely unable to show where decreasing taxes in a bad economy helps that economy. Want to try again. You failed miserably last time. And you will again this time, because it does not work. Econ 101, Simple stuff.



Yes, so you say. But you can not show it happening, because it never does. Try, try again, dipshit.

Anyone with 1 hour of business school knows that PRIVATE CAPITAL is the life blood of economic growth.

Yes it is, in a good economy. In a bad economy, that private capital goes away, so that lifeblood you are talking about is a trickle.

More taxes for more and growing government equals less private capital for investment. Econ 101 for dummies.

Ignorant statement. It is not more taxes to grow government. That is simply a con talking point. More taxes are to raise revenue for stimulus spending, to get the economy moving. As clinton did in establishing a growing and vital economy. And as Reagan did when his policies of low taxes drove up the ue rate to the second highest rate outside of the great depression. He raised taxes 11 times, and borrowed enough to triple the national debt. And used stimulus spending to get the economy moving again. Econ 101. Not for dummies. That, apparently, is your version of economics.

All the evidence you provide is "you are lying".
You are the one obviously not telling the truth. If you are you did not learn a damn thing in college.
INTEREST RATES ARE LOW DUMB ASS
With UNCERTAINTY IN FUTURE TAX RATES
So tell us oh wise one what does the wise investor do with low interest rates and uncertainty in future tax rates?
INVEST IN MUNIS!!!!!
Looking at one of my accounts now:
DWS Managed Municipal Bond Fund-S SCMBX $182,594.
DWS Short Duration Fund DBPIX $35,670.
DWS Asset Allocation Fund KTRSX $39,484.

Now I am a lot too much in on long term with this Deutsche Bank Fund and will shift it within 12 months at an even amount each month over to shorter duration funds.

But I PAY NO TAXES on any of these.

Go back to school. If you do not know that when interest rates are low and future tax rates are unknown you always go bonds to avoid taxes you took Greek Mythology and not business.

 

[Rshermr]

So Gawdag says the following easily refuted nonsence.

When taxes go up I invest none of my capital and sit on it placing it in TAX FREE municipal bonds.

Good for you. It is, as they say, your money, after all. However, you seem to be a bit inconsistent. Because you say you are doing that now. And today, we have taxes lower than any time since the early 50's. So that says you are lying. There is some other reason for putting your money in tax free muni's.

"Bruce Bartlett, former adviser to President Reagan, runs some numbers on taxes in the United States and finds a result that is counter-intuitive given the state of debate:
Historically, the term “tax rate” has meant the average or effective tax rate — that is, taxes as a share of income. The broadest measure of the tax rate is total federal revenues divided by the gross domestic product.
By this measure, federal taxes are at their lowest level in more than 60 years. The Congressional Budget Officeestimated that federal taxes would consume just 14.8 percent of G.D.P. this year. The last year in which revenues were lower was 1950, according to the Office of Management and Budget.
The postwar annual average is about 18.5 percent of G.D.P. Revenues averaged 18.2 percent of G.D.P. during Ronald Reagan‘s administration; the lowest percentage during that administration was 17.3 percent of G.D.P. in 1984.
In short, by the broadest measure of the tax rate, the current level is unusually low and has been for some time. Revenues were 14.9 percent of G.D.P. in both 2009 and 2010."
Federal Taxes At Lowest Rate Since 1950

So, I say you are posting bullshit, me boy.

NO revenue going to government times millions of folks just like me.



So, let me get this straight. If there is demand for your product, and the tax rate is too high, then you will not sell your product. And therefor you will not need to grow your company, and you will not need to hire people to work for you. But, on the other hand, if taxes are low but there is little demand for your product, then you will produce lots of it. Even though you can not sell it. Because you ...what, like to build inventory? I call bullshit on you. You are simply a lying con tool.


So, when reagan lowered taxes the unemployment rate went to the highest ever outside of the great depression. Must have missed something, my con tool. Cause you can not show a single case where what you just said has happened. Why if you are so sure that it does happen, are you so completely unable to show where decreasing taxes in a bad economy helps that economy. Want to try again. You failed miserably last time. And you will again this time, because it does not work. Econ 101, Simple stuff.



Yes, so you say. But you can not show it happening, because it never does. Try, try again, dipshit.



Yes it is, in a good economy. In a bad economy, that private capital goes away, so that lifeblood you are talking about is a trickle.

More taxes for more and growing government equals less private capital for investment. Econ 101 for dummies.

Ignorant statement. It is not more taxes to grow government. That is simply a con talking point. More taxes are to raise revenue for stimulus spending, to get the economy moving. As clinton did in establishing a growing and vital economy. And as Reagan did when his policies of low taxes drove up the ue rate to the second highest rate outside of the great depression. He raised taxes 11 times, and borrowed enough to triple the national debt. And used stimulus spending to get the economy moving again. Econ 101. Not for dummies. That, apparently, is your version of economics.

All the evidence you provide is "you are lying".
You are the one obviously not telling the truth. If you are you did not learn a damn thing in college.
INTEREST RATES ARE LOW DUMB ASS
With UNCERTAINTY IN FUTURE TAX RATES
So tell us oh wise one what does the wise investor do with low interest rates and uncertainty in future tax rates?
INVEST IN MUNIS!!!!!
Looking at one of my accounts now:
DWS Managed Municipal Bond Fund-S SCMBX $182,594.
DWS Short Duration Fund DBPIX $35,670.
DWS Asset Allocation Fund KTRSX $39,484.

Now I am a lot too much in on long term with this Deutsche Bank Fund and will shift it within 12 months at an even amount each month over to shorter duration funds.

But I PAY NO TAXES on any of these.

Go back to school. If you do not know that when interest rates are low and future tax rates are unknown you always go bonds to avoid taxes you took Greek Mythology and not business.

Jesus, Gadawg, there must be some historical proof for what you are saying. You know, when tax rates have actually been raised and the economy got worse in a bad economy. Just can not do it, can ya, dipshit. Really pisses you off, eh. But there you go. And you spend your time talking about your fucking investments. dipshit.

 

[Gadawg73]

So Gawdag says the following easily refuted nonsence.



Good for you. It is, as they say, your money, after all. However, you seem to be a bit inconsistent. Because you say you are doing that now. And today, we have taxes lower than any time since the early 50's. So that says you are lying. There is some other reason for putting your money in tax free muni's.

"Bruce Bartlett, former adviser to President Reagan, runs some numbers on taxes in the United States and finds a result that is counter-intuitive given the state of debate:
Historically, the term “tax rate” has meant the average or effective tax rate — that is, taxes as a share of income. The broadest measure of the tax rate is total federal revenues divided by the gross domestic product.
By this measure, federal taxes are at their lowest level in more than 60 years. The Congressional Budget Officeestimated that federal taxes would consume just 14.8 percent of G.D.P. this year. The last year in which revenues were lower was 1950, according to the Office of Management and Budget.
The postwar annual average is about 18.5 percent of G.D.P. Revenues averaged 18.2 percent of G.D.P. during Ronald Reagan‘s administration; the lowest percentage during that administration was 17.3 percent of G.D.P. in 1984.
In short, by the broadest measure of the tax rate, the current level is unusually low and has been for some time. Revenues were 14.9 percent of G.D.P. in both 2009 and 2010."
Federal Taxes At Lowest Rate Since 1950

So, I say you are posting bullshit, me boy.

NO revenue going to government times millions of folks just like me.



So, let me get this straight. If there is demand for your product, and the tax rate is too high, then you will not sell your product. And therefor you will not need to grow your company, and you will not need to hire people to work for you. But, on the other hand, if taxes are low but there is little demand for your product, then you will produce lots of it. Even though you can not sell it. Because you ...what, like to build inventory? I call bullshit on you. You are simply a lying con tool.


So, when reagan lowered taxes the unemployment rate went to the highest ever outside of the great depression. Must have missed something, my con tool. Cause you can not show a single case where what you just said has happened. Why if you are so sure that it does happen, are you so completely unable to show where decreasing taxes in a bad economy helps that economy. Want to try again. You failed miserably last time. And you will again this time, because it does not work. Econ 101, Simple stuff.



Yes, so you say. But you can not show it happening, because it never does. Try, try again, dipshit.



Yes it is, in a good economy. In a bad economy, that private capital goes away, so that lifeblood you are talking about is a trickle.




Ignorant statement. It is not more taxes to grow government. That is simply a con talking point. More taxes are to raise revenue for stimulus spending, to get the economy moving. As clinton did in establishing a growing and vital economy. And as Reagan did when his policies of low taxes drove up the ue rate to the second highest rate outside of the great depression. He raised taxes 11 times, and borrowed enough to triple the national debt. And used stimulus spending to get the economy moving again. Econ 101. Not for dummies. That, apparently, is your version of economics.

All the evidence you provide is "you are lying".
You are the one obviously not telling the truth. If you are you did not learn a damn thing in college.
INTEREST RATES ARE LOW DUMB ASS
With UNCERTAINTY IN FUTURE TAX RATES
So tell us oh wise one what does the wise investor do with low interest rates and uncertainty in future tax rates?
INVEST IN MUNIS!!!!!
Looking at one of my accounts now:
DWS Managed Municipal Bond Fund-S SCMBX $182,594.
DWS Short Duration Fund DBPIX $35,670.
DWS Asset Allocation Fund KTRSX $39,484.

Now I am a lot too much in on long term with this Deutsche Bank Fund and will shift it within 12 months at an even amount each month over to shorter duration funds.

But I PAY NO TAXES on any of these.

Go back to school. If you do not know that when interest rates are low and future tax rates are unknown you always go bonds to avoid taxes you took Greek Mythology and not business.

Jesus, Gadawg, there must be some historical proof for what you are saying. You know, when tax rates have actually been raised and the economy got worse in a bad economy. Just can not do it, can ya, dipshit. Really pisses you off, eh. But there you go. And you spend your time talking about your fucking investments. dipshit.

Why would I be mad?
Us producers have our $$$ where the parasitic moocher class can not get it.
I feel bad for the youth who have to pay more and get less because of the continued Democratic support of the moocher class.
I am headed to Puerto Morales in a few weeks. Retiring in 4 1/2 years at age 63 and if things do not change headed to Panama or Costa Rica where they appreciate those that produce.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Retiring in 4 1/2 years at age 63 and if things do not change headed to Panama or Costa Rica where they appreciate those that produce.

"The greater the government the stronger the exploiter and the weaker the producer; that , therefore, the hope of liberty depends upon local self-governance and the vigilance of the producer class."

Thomas Jefferson

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

there must be some historical proof for what you are saying. You know, when tax rates have actually been raised and the economy got worse in a bad economy.

of course by definition if you raise taxes you shrink the private economy which is 100% responsible for economic growth so it is the last thing you would do in a bad economy.

Would you choke a man to help him breath better?

See why we are 100% positve a liberal will be slow??

you want examples look at FDR and Obama; they increased government and have had the worst economies in the last 100 years!!

See why we are 100% positve a liberal will be slow??

 

[Rshermr]

there must be some historical proof for what you are saying. You know, when tax rates have actually been raised and the economy got worse in a bad economy.

of course by definition if you raise taxes you shrink the private economy which is 100% responsible for economic growth so it is the last thing you would do in a bad economy.

Would you choke a man to help him breath better?

See why we are 100% positve a liberal will be slow??

you want examples look at FDR and Obama; they increased government and have had the worst economies in the last 100 years!!

See why we are 100% positve a liberal will be slow??

Would I choke a man to help him breath??? If he had his head up his ass, maybe it would help. So yeah, I would probably choke you.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

there must be some historical proof for what you are saying. You know, when tax rates have actually been raised and the economy got worse in a bad economy.

of course by definition if you raise taxes you shrink the private economy which is 100% responsible for economic growth so it is the last thing you would do in a bad economy.

Would you choke a man to help him breath better?

See why we are 100% positve a liberal will be slow??

you want examples look at FDR and Obama; they increased government and have had the worst economies in the last 100 years!!

See why we are 100% positve a liberal will be slow??

Would I choke a man to help him breath??? If he had his head up his ass, maybe it would help. So yeah, I would probably choke you.

typical liberal personal attack becuase the liberal lacks the IQ for substance

of course by definition if you raise taxes you shrink the private economy which is 100% responsible for economic growth so it is the last thing you would do in a bad economy.