Flat 10% income tax

[The Rabbi]

I think that the wealthy should pay more. I think that everyone should pay something. Maybe 1% up to 50K, 2% up to 85K and then 10% for the "and up" guys.

May a less steeply graduated scale.

It doesn't seem right that those who are enjoying the benefits have none of the costs.

Would the no deductions, no exemptions apply to everyone?

hy should the wealthy pay more? By doing so, you discourage people from becoming wealthy (in actuality earning high incomes, which isnt the same thing). People who are wealthy generate wealth for others. Why discourage this?

But I agree that everyone needs to pay income tax in order to vote. No representation without taxation!

So you turned down that job as a CEO because your taxes would go up?

Actually yes I did.
In fact people respond to tax incentives. Hillary Clinton herself did so, shoving billing from one year to the next to save on income taxes.
You can take a hint from Hillary and shove it yourself.

 

[uscitizen]

People who are wealthy generate more wealth for themselves. Often at the expense of the little guy.

This is proven with empirical data.

Only in Marxism.
In real life it doesn't work like that. Wealth is generated by investments in succesful businesses. Those businesses employ people and purchase goods and services from other people and businesses, adding to employemnt.
No surprise you would not understand this. Neither does Obama or anyone connected to him.

Wealth in a capitalistic system is created by the ownership of productivity and the less you pay for that productivity the more wealth you create for yourself.

Productivity is increased by reducing labor costs.

 

[The Rabbi]

People who are wealthy generate more wealth for themselves. Often at the expense of the little guy.

This is proven with empirical data.

Only in Marxism.
In real life it doesn't work like that. Wealth is generated by investments in succesful businesses. Those businesses employ people and purchase goods and services from other people and businesses, adding to employemnt.
No surprise you would not understand this. Neither does Obama or anyone connected to him.

So I get wealth from someone buying junk mortgage securities?
Or I get wealth from wealthy speculators driving oil to $150/bbl?
Or do they get richer from me paying $4/gal for gas?

Remember now our economy is 70% consumer spending based.

Who are "wealthy speculators"?? Please name these people.
Do you understand the function of futures markets as a method of controlling risk? Probably not.
Oh yea, that computer you're using right now. Who got wealthy from you buying it? (Or more likely the library you are sitting in since homeless people don't have computers).

 

[The Rabbi]

Only in Marxism.
In real life it doesn't work like that. Wealth is generated by investments in succesful businesses. Those businesses employ people and purchase goods and services from other people and businesses, adding to employemnt.
No surprise you would not understand this. Neither does Obama or anyone connected to him.

Wealth in a capitalistic system is created by the ownership of productivity and the less you pay for that productivity the more wealth you create for yourself.

Productivity is increased by reducing labor costs.

You continue to prove your ignorance of basic economics.

Productivity is increased by reducing UNIT labor cost. It is not the same thing.

 

[PeterS]

hy should the wealthy pay more? By doing so, you discourage people from becoming wealthy (in actuality earning high incomes, which isnt the same thing). People who are wealthy generate wealth for others. Why discourage this?

But I agree that everyone needs to pay income tax in order to vote. No representation without taxation!

So you turned down that job as a CEO because your taxes would go up?

Actually yes I did.
In fact people respond to tax incentives. Hillary Clinton herself did so, shoving billing from one year to the next to save on income taxes.
You can take a hint from Hillary and shove it yourself.

So did you make more money turning down your CEO job? And how does deferring income from one year to the next mean you turn down a job as a CEO. I've done that before and didn't give up my business.

 

[uscitizen]

Only in Marxism.
In real life it doesn't work like that. Wealth is generated by investments in succesful businesses. Those businesses employ people and purchase goods and services from other people and businesses, adding to employemnt.
No surprise you would not understand this. Neither does Obama or anyone connected to him.

So I get wealth from someone buying junk mortgage securities?
Or I get wealth from wealthy speculators driving oil to $150/bbl?
Or do they get richer from me paying $4/gal for gas?

Remember now our economy is 70% consumer spending based.

Who are "wealthy speculators"?? Please name these people.
Do you understand the function of futures markets as a method of controlling risk? Probably not.
Oh yea, that computer you're using right now. Who got wealthy from you buying it? (Or more likely the library you are sitting in since homeless people don't have computers).

So I am homeless since I do not agree with your economic theories?
You are retardo el grande.

Who got wealthy from my buying it? Chinese and Tiwanese I figure.

 

[The Rabbi]

So I get wealth from someone buying junk mortgage securities?
Or I get wealth from wealthy speculators driving oil to $150/bbl?
Or do they get richer from me paying $4/gal for gas?

Remember now our economy is 70% consumer spending based.

Who are "wealthy speculators"?? Please name these people.
Do you understand the function of futures markets as a method of controlling risk? Probably not.
Oh yea, that computer you're using right now. Who got wealthy from you buying it? (Or more likely the library you are sitting in since homeless people don't have computers).

So I am homeless since I do not agree with your economic theories?
You are retardo el grande.

Who got wealthy from my buying it? Chinese and Tiwanese I figure.

No you are homeless because you have about a second grade education in economics. None of this is very difficult to understand.
You went China/Taiwan to buy your computer??

 

[uscitizen]

Wealth in a capitalistic system is created by the ownership of productivity and the less you pay for that productivity the more wealth you create for yourself.

Productivity is increased by reducing labor costs.

You continue to prove your ignorance of basic economics.

Productivity is increased by reducing UNIT labor cost. It is not the same thing.

everytime a company lays off workers their productivity rises and so does their stock price. How does that help the laid off workers?

You are being deceptive. Reducing unit costs is often achieved by reducing labor costs.

 

[PeterS]

Only in Marxism.
In real life it doesn't work like that. Wealth is generated by investments in succesful businesses. Those businesses employ people and purchase goods and services from other people and businesses, adding to employemnt.
No surprise you would not understand this. Neither does Obama or anyone connected to him.

Wealth in a capitalistic system is created by the ownership of productivity and the less you pay for that productivity the more wealth you create for yourself.

Productivity is increased by reducing labor costs.

Nope. 60 minutes just did a piece on a Swedish company who moved their US operations to Mexico in order to increase their bottom line by 85M. In all likelihood productivity decreased but because of the labor cost differential profits increased by 85M.

 

[uscitizen]

Wealth in a capitalistic system is created by the ownership of productivity and the less you pay for that productivity the more wealth you create for yourself.

Productivity is increased by reducing labor costs.

Nope. 60 minutes just did a piece on a Swedish company who moved their US operations to Mexico in order to increase their bottom line by 85M. In all likelihood productivity decreased but because of the labor cost differential profits increased by 85M.

Yep, productivity increased due to decreased labor costs.

 

[PeterS]

Productivity is increased by reducing labor costs.

You continue to prove your ignorance of basic economics.

Productivity is increased by reducing UNIT labor cost. It is not the same thing.

everytime a company lays off workers their productivity rises and so does their stock price. How does that help the laid off workers?

You are being deceptive. Reducing unit costs is often achieved by reducing labor costs.

How are the lied off workers the responsibility of the company? And if a company can make X widgets using Y labor the Y + 1 of the laid off employee represents waste. Why should a company waste capital simply to give someone a job?

 

[uscitizen]

You continue to prove your ignorance of basic economics.

Productivity is increased by reducing UNIT labor cost. It is not the same thing.

everytime a company lays off workers their productivity rises and so does their stock price. How does that help the laid off workers?

You are being deceptive. Reducing unit costs is often achieved by reducing labor costs.

How are the lied off workers the responsibility of the company? And if a company can make X widgets using Y labor the Y + 1 of the laid off employee represents waste. Why should a company waste capital simply to give someone a job?

I never said it was the companies responsibility to provide jobs. Others seemd to imply that increased productivity was good for workers.

 

[PeterS]

Productivity is increased by reducing labor costs.

Nope. 60 minutes just did a piece on a Swedish company who moved their US operations to Mexico in order to increase their bottom line by 85M. In all likelihood productivity decreased but because of the labor cost differential profits increased by 85M.

Yep, productivity increased due to decreased labor costs.

How? Were more widgets made? Productivity is a measure of output and besides if I can increase output by decreasing labor you just made the case for lower wages.

You should think a little more about your arguments.

 

[PeterS]

everytime a company lays off workers their productivity rises and so does their stock price. How does that help the laid off workers?

You are being deceptive. Reducing unit costs is often achieved by reducing labor costs.

How are the lied off workers the responsibility of the company? And if a company can make X widgets using Y labor the Y + 1 of the laid off employee represents waste. Why should a company waste capital simply to give someone a job?

I never said it was the companies responsibility to provide jobs. Others seemd to imply that increased productivity was good for workers.

A company making profits is good for workers and if you can make more profits using the same or fewer employees that is certainly good for all.

 

[uscitizen]

How are the lied off workers the responsibility of the company? And if a company can make X widgets using Y labor the Y + 1 of the laid off employee represents waste. Why should a company waste capital simply to give someone a job?

I never said it was the companies responsibility to provide jobs. Others seemd to imply that increased productivity was good for workers.

A company making profits is good for workers and if you can make more profits using the same or fewer employees that is certainly good for all.

Good for the people that were laid off?

 

[The Rabbi]

Productivity is increased by reducing labor costs.

You continue to prove your ignorance of basic economics.

Productivity is increased by reducing UNIT labor cost. It is not the same thing.

everytime a company lays off workers their productivity rises and so does their stock price. How does that help the laid off workers?

You are being deceptive. Reducing unit costs is often achieved by reducing labor costs.

The logical consequence of that is that all companies should lay off all their workers so they can achieve maximum productivity.
Doesn't make much sense now, does it?
It helps the laid off workers by freeing them to pursue more productive jobs in growing industries.

 

[The Rabbi]

Productivity is increased by reducing labor costs.

Nope. 60 minutes just did a piece on a Swedish company who moved their US operations to Mexico in order to increase their bottom line by 85M. In all likelihood productivity decreased but because of the labor cost differential profits increased by 85M.

Yep, productivity increased due to decreased labor costs.

Ignorant and don't learn quickly I see.

No, UNIT labor costs decreased. Big difference.

 

[uscitizen]

You continue to prove your ignorance of basic economics.

Productivity is increased by reducing UNIT labor cost. It is not the same thing.

everytime a company lays off workers their productivity rises and so does their stock price. How does that help the laid off workers?

You are being deceptive. Reducing unit costs is often achieved by reducing labor costs.

The logical consequence of that is that all companies should lay off all their workers so they can achieve maximum productivity.
Doesn't make much sense now, does it?
It helps the laid off workers by freeing them to pursue more productive jobs in growing industries.

Ahh that right wing tactic of pushing something to the absurd in an attempt to extricate themselves.

 

[uscitizen]

Nope. 60 minutes just did a piece on a Swedish company who moved their US operations to Mexico in order to increase their bottom line by 85M. In all likelihood productivity decreased but because of the labor cost differential profits increased by 85M.

Yep, productivity increased due to decreased labor costs.

Ignorant and don't learn quickly I see.

No, UNIT labor costs decreased. Big difference.

You neglected to mention that the market will only support X number of units.

 

[The Rabbi]

everytime a company lays off workers their productivity rises and so does their stock price. How does that help the laid off workers?

You are being deceptive. Reducing unit costs is often achieved by reducing labor costs.

The logical consequence of that is that all companies should lay off all their workers so they can achieve maximum productivity.
Doesn't make much sense now, does it?
It helps the laid off workers by freeing them to pursue more productive jobs in growing industries.

Ahh that right wing tactic of pushing something to the absurd in an attempt to extricate themselves.

A non-answer, indicative of non-thought.
So tell me what's wrong with that analysis? If laying off some workers is good, then laying off all workers will be better, right?