Liberals: The "RICH" keep more of there wealth, they are given nothing

[8537]

GWB had nothing to do with Obamas deficits
nothing

So the wars, and medicare Part D, and the increased farm subsidies, and the tax cuts that all happened during the Bush administration...had no impact on the budget of the Obama administration?

OK.


No, as I've already demonstrated that's a significant decline in revenues. you might remember that the deepest recession since WW2 started in December of 2007.




Yes, it matters.



So you think that when the tax rates go up, people start making less?

Do you have a single shred of evidence to support this? While you're looking, try this on for size: The top marginal rate during Eisenhower's time was 91%. That was also the time of some of the greatest wealth accumulation and wage increases in US history.

In 1993, Bill Clinton raised taxes. The seven years that followed saw a dramatic increase in the wealth of the top 10% of Americans.

And yet a corporation is just a piece of paper
we collect taxes from a piece of paper?
I do not think so, think about that for a minute

We collect taxes from the corporate entity. It is just as capable as any other tax-paying entity to save, to invest, to consume and to pay taxes out of revenues.

If tax rates go up people start WORKING LESS.
At some point I say FUCK IT.

Well, you've done a nice job of repeating the talking point.

Unfortunately, reality doesn't bear it out.

hen will you people start to KNOW that wealthy people do not have to work if they do not have to?
Why work if I have to give more of my $$ away? It isn't worth it.

Somehow people worked when the TMR was 91%.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Somehow people worked when the TMR was 91%.

Really? What was the per capita GDP at that time?

 

[8537]

Somehow people worked when the TMR was 91%.

Really? What was the per capita GDP at that time?

About $15,000 in 2000 dollars. It was only $1,000 when the TMR was zero, which is just about as relevant.

 

[Gadawg73]

So the wars, and medicare Part D, and the increased farm subsidies, and the tax cuts that all happened during the Bush administration...had no impact on the budget of the Obama administration?

OK.


No, as I've already demonstrated that's a significant decline in revenues. you might remember that the deepest recession since WW2 started in December of 2007.




Yes, it matters.



So you think that when the tax rates go up, people start making less?

Do you have a single shred of evidence to support this? While you're looking, try this on for size: The top marginal rate during Eisenhower's time was 91%. That was also the time of some of the greatest wealth accumulation and wage increases in US history.

In 1993, Bill Clinton raised taxes. The seven years that followed saw a dramatic increase in the wealth of the top 10% of Americans.




We collect taxes from the corporate entity. It is just as capable as any other tax-paying entity to save, to invest, to consume and to pay taxes out of revenues.

If tax rates go up people start WORKING LESS.
At some point I say FUCK IT.

Well, you've done a nice job of repeating the talking point.

Unfortunately, reality doesn't bear it out.

hen will you people start to KNOW that wealthy people do not have to work if they do not have to?
Why work if I have to give more of my $$ away? It isn't worth it.

Somehow people worked when the TMR was 91%.

Let me appeal to your reason and common sense.
If I employ you and you are my only employee and I pay you $80,000 a year. And I have profit sharing.
After the first year my profit is $100,000. After corporate taxes my net profit is $85,000And under our agreement you get 20% of the profits.
You get a profit sharing check of $17,000.
Now eliminate the corporate taxes and the next year I have another $100,000. profit.
Without the corporate taxes YOUR profit sharing check is $20,000.
Now go ahead and man up and state now you have changed your mind and you now know that taxes are bad for EVERYONE THAT WORKS or:
Look very foolish claiming that you would rather that $$ go to Washington.
So WHICH IS IT?

 

[8537]

If tax rates go up people start WORKING LESS.
At some point I say FUCK IT.

Well, you've done a nice job of repeating the talking point.

Unfortunately, reality doesn't bear it out.

hen will you people start to KNOW that wealthy people do not have to work if they do not have to?
Why work if I have to give more of my $$ away? It isn't worth it.

Somehow people worked when the TMR was 91%.

Let me appeal to your reason and common sense.
If I employ you and you are my only employee and I pay you $80,000 a year. And I have profit sharing.
After the first year my profit is $100,000. After corporate taxes my net profit is $85,000And under our agreement you get 20% of the profits.
You get a profit sharing check of $17,000.
Now eliminate the corporate taxes and the next year I have another $100,000. profit.
Without the corporate taxes YOUR profit sharing check is $20,000.
Now go ahead and man up and state now you have changed your mind and you now know that taxes are bad for EVERYONE THAT WORKS or:
Look very foolish claiming that you would rather that $$ go to Washington.
So WHICH IS IT?

What a silly little setup you created there. Taxes fund things - including making sure that the $100,000 you make stays in a bank and the patents you claim are honored and the roads used to distribute your products are paved.

Now go try to make that same amount of money without any of the aforementioned tax-funded items. Hint: you can't.

Taxes are part of a civilized society. They are how we fund public goods. There are times when taxes are better spent in the private sector. There are times when they are better spent by government. Whoever spends money, they increase economic production.

 

[Gadawg73]

Well, you've done a nice job of repeating the talking point.

Unfortunately, reality doesn't bear it out.



Somehow people worked when the TMR was 91%.

Let me appeal to your reason and common sense.
If I employ you and you are my only employee and I pay you $80,000 a year. And I have profit sharing.
After the first year my profit is $100,000. After corporate taxes my net profit is $85,000And under our agreement you get 20% of the profits.
You get a profit sharing check of $17,000.
Now eliminate the corporate taxes and the next year I have another $100,000. profit.
Without the corporate taxes YOUR profit sharing check is $20,000.
Now go ahead and man up and state now you have changed your mind and you now know that taxes are bad for EVERYONE THAT WORKS or:
Look very foolish claiming that you would rather that $$ go to Washington.
So WHICH IS IT?

What a silly little setup you created there. Taxes fund things - including making sure that the $100,000 you make stays in a bank and the patents you claim are honored and the roads used to distribute your products are paved.

Now go try to make that same amount of money without any of the aforementioned tax-funded items. Hint: you can't.

Taxes are part of a civilized society. They are how we fund public goods. There are times when taxes are better spent in the private sector. There are times when they are better spent by government. Whoever spends money, they increase economic production.

Taxes are never spent in the private sector. Taxes ARE TAKEN FROM THE PRIVATE sector.
What about when government takes $$ for your supposed increases in economic production, THEN THAT $$$ TAKEN FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR DECREASES PRIVATE ECONOMIC PRODUCTION.
Are you trying to tell us YOU believe government is as good or even ONE HALF as good as competing in the economic production business as the PRIVATE SECTOR?
Please!! You are killing me!
I am speaking real world which I live in and work in every day. I own three corporations and do business just as I mentioned above. EXACTLY like that. I give profit sharing.
Real world.
You dodged my real world question like a monkey on fire. If you believe government does a better job of "increasing economic production" you are not very swift at all.
Again, would you rather have government or yourself have that $3000?
Now tell us and explain to us how it helps the economy MORE to let government take that $, spend most of it on NON productive activities such as bureaucracy and how much of that dollar gets spent doing anything productive.
And tell us how that $3000. in YOUR pocket does not help YOU, your family and the community grow more economically than being in the hands of government.
Respectfully, if you do not understand that you know nothing aboutgovernment or the free market.
But I know you understand it very well. You are stubborn and hard headed and probably very young. One day, when it is YOUR $$$ AND YOUR ASS on the line and you have employees that DEPEND ON YOU, you will admit it.
Now is as good as any. Get the load off of your shoulders.

 

[Gadawg73]

When will you folks admit and see that GOVERNMENT does not compete IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR.
They do not have to make a demn PROFIT!!!!!
Government IS NOT THE PRIVATE SECTOR. They may SPEND $$$ in the private sector but if they do not have to be competitive then HOW DOES GOVERNMENT SET THEIR PRICES when they have NO profit motive? GOVERNMENT IS THE PUBLIC SECTOR.
Damn, you folks are BAT SHIT STUPID.

 

[Sallow]

You draw your money from our society and you are expected to contribute back. It is part of being a member of a civilization. Those who exact the most from our society are expected to contribute more. That is where the wealthy come in.

Nobody exists in a vacuum......you are part of the whole

I've pointed out on multiple occasions on this that the largest "private" corporations and "private" institutions are large because of government grants and contracts. That and the vast amount of infrastructure available to them has increased their wealth more then in any at time in the history of wealth accumulation. The system works for them. And the reason they do not want to put back in..is simple.

Short sightness and greed.

 

[8537]

Let me appeal to your reason and common sense.
If I employ you and you are my only employee and I pay you $80,000 a year. And I have profit sharing.
After the first year my profit is $100,000. After corporate taxes my net profit is $85,000And under our agreement you get 20% of the profits.
You get a profit sharing check of $17,000.
Now eliminate the corporate taxes and the next year I have another $100,000. profit.
Without the corporate taxes YOUR profit sharing check is $20,000.
Now go ahead and man up and state now you have changed your mind and you now know that taxes are bad for EVERYONE THAT WORKS or:
Look very foolish claiming that you would rather that $$ go to Washington.
So WHICH IS IT?

What a silly little setup you created there. Taxes fund things - including making sure that the $100,000 you make stays in a bank and the patents you claim are honored and the roads used to distribute your products are paved.

Now go try to make that same amount of money without any of the aforementioned tax-funded items. Hint: you can't.

Taxes are part of a civilized society. They are how we fund public goods. There are times when taxes are better spent in the private sector. There are times when they are better spent by government. Whoever spends money, they increase economic production.

Taxes are never spent in the private sector.

Try telling that to Boeing, KBR, GE etc....

Taxes ARE TAKEN FROM THE PRIVATE sector.

and spent- finding their way to....the private sector.

What about when government takes $$ for your supposed increases in economic production, THEN THAT $$$ TAKEN FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR DECREASES PRIVATE ECONOMIC PRODUCTION.

No, it doesn't. If you haven't noticed, the government doesn't save. It spends. And it spends money in three areas:

1. On people - who use the money to buy stuff in the private sector.
2. On goods and services purchased from the private sector.
3. On protecting public goods, which makes it so you can earn $100,000.

Are you trying to tell us YOU believe government is as good or even ONE HALF as good as competing in the economic production business as the PRIVATE SECTOR?
Please!! You are killing me!

Depends on what you're trying to produce. Market goods? The government can't compete. Clean water? National defense? Roads? the government competes and wins.

I am speaking real world which I live in and work in every day. I own three corporations and do business just as I mentioned above. EXACTLY like that. I give profit sharing.
Real world.

I'm not concerned with what you do in the real world.

You dodged my real world question like a monkey on fire.

no, you didn't understand my answer.

Again, would you rather have government or yourself have that $3000?

Again, that depends.

Respectfully, if you do not understand that you know nothing aboutgovernment or the free market.

I'm quite certain I understand the market, economics and the role of government just fine, thanks.

But I know you understand it very well. You are stubborn and hard headed and probably very young.

Young! Yes, that's the ticket.

One day, when it is YOUR $$$ AND YOUR ASS on the line and you have employees that DEPEND ON YOU, you will admit it.

I'll let them know you said that.

 

[Sallow]

When will you folks admit and see that GOVERNMENT does not compete IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR.
They do not have to make a demn PROFIT!!!!!
Government IS NOT THE PRIVATE SECTOR. They may SPEND $$$ in the private sector but if they do not have to be competitive then HOW DOES GOVERNMENT SET THEIR PRICES when they have NO profit motive? GOVERNMENT IS THE PUBLIC SECTOR.
Damn, you folks are BAT SHIT STUPID.

So, I will put you down as one of the folks that thinks we as tax payers..should stop tax dollars getting funneled to private interests?

-The government should build it's own military gear?
-The government should distribute it's own drugs that it pays to research?
-The government should stop using private construction companies to take care of infrastructure?
-The government should stop protecting private interests overseas?
-The government should stop issuing patents and copyrights?

That what you're saying?

 

[Gadawg73]

You draw your money from our society and you are expected to contribute back. It is part of being a member of a civilization. Those who exact the most from our society are expected to contribute more. That is where the wealthy come in.

Nobody exists in a vacuum......you are part of the whole

I've pointed out on multiple occasions on this that the largest "private" corporations and "private" institutions are large because of government grants and contracts. That and the vast amount of infrastructure available to them has increased their wealth more then in any at time in the history of wealth accumulation. The system works for them. And the reason they do not want to put back in..is simple.

Short sightness and greed.

Who do you propose government contract with when doing business?
The government?
WTF does the government manufacture that government can buy?

Give me an example where government contracts with a private company to buy something and that is bad for government.
One example.

 

[Oddball]

You draw your money from our society and you are expected to contribute back. It is part of being a member of a civilization. Those who exact the most from our society are expected to contribute more. That is where the wealthy come in.

Nobody exists in a vacuum......you are part of the whole

Gubmint produces nothing of added value for the economy...EVER.

Every bit of gubmint's "income" is first earned by the productive, from which it is expropriated.

Politicians, bureaucrats and the rest of the moocher class can suck a big vacuum on the iron sausage, without the industrialist and entrepreneur.

 

[Sallow]

You draw your money from our society and you are expected to contribute back. It is part of being a member of a civilization. Those who exact the most from our society are expected to contribute more. That is where the wealthy come in.

Nobody exists in a vacuum......you are part of the whole

I've pointed out on multiple occasions on this that the largest "private" corporations and "private" institutions are large because of government grants and contracts. That and the vast amount of infrastructure available to them has increased their wealth more then in any at time in the history of wealth accumulation. The system works for them. And the reason they do not want to put back in..is simple.

Short sightness and greed.

Who do you propose government contract with when doing business?
The government?
WTF does the government manufacture that government can buy?

Give me an example where government contracts with a private company to buy something and that is bad for government.
One example.

That's not the point.

Our government is so large..it really doesn't need private industry to do a great many of the things it contracts out. And it's an example of funneling tax money to the rich.

Conservatives go nuts as well when this gets put into practice..a prime example of that is President Obama's direct government funding of student loans. See? No more middleman.

If that's what the two fisted private industry types want..it would be funny to see how long that model lasts.

 

[Sallow]

You draw your money from our society and you are expected to contribute back. It is part of being a member of a civilization. Those who exact the most from our society are expected to contribute more. That is where the wealthy come in.

Nobody exists in a vacuum......you are part of the whole

Gubmint produces nothing of added value for the economy...EVER.

Every bit of gubmint's "income" is first earned by the productive, from which it is expropriated.

Politicians, bureaucrats and the rest of the moocher class can suck a big vacuum on the iron sausage, without the industrialist and entrepreneur.

That's completely incorrect.

And educated population and a complex, well made highway and road system shoots your theory down nicely.

Both have lead to enormous successes in the private realm.

 

[Gadawg73]

I've pointed out on multiple occasions on this that the largest "private" corporations and "private" institutions are large because of government grants and contracts. That and the vast amount of infrastructure available to them has increased their wealth more then in any at time in the history of wealth accumulation. The system works for them. And the reason they do not want to put back in..is simple.

Short sightness and greed.

Who do you propose government contract with when doing business?
The government?
WTF does the government manufacture that government can buy?

Give me an example where government contracts with a private company to buy something and that is bad for government.
One example.

That's not the point.

Our government is so large..it really doesn't need private industry to do a great many of the things it contracts out. And it's an example of funneling tax money to the rich.

Conservatives go nuts as well when this gets put into practice..a prime example of that is President Obama's direct government funding of student loans. See? No more middleman.

If that's what the two fisted private industry types want..it would be funny to see how long that model lasts.

Loans do not manufacture a damn thing.
And if we handle those loans and the interest rates go sky high what happens?
WE assume all of the risk.
Wealth accumulation is IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR. Government never accumulates a damn thing. Government has us in a Holmesian fuck hold and I can not take much more.

 

[Oddball]

You draw your money from our society and you are expected to contribute back. It is part of being a member of a civilization. Those who exact the most from our society are expected to contribute more. That is where the wealthy come in.

Nobody exists in a vacuum......you are part of the whole

Gubmint produces nothing of added value for the economy...EVER.

Every bit of gubmint's "income" is first earned by the productive, from which it is expropriated.

Politicians, bureaucrats and the rest of the moocher class can suck a big vacuum on the iron sausage, without the industrialist and entrepreneur.

That's completely incorrect.

And educated population and a complex, well made highway and road system shoots your theory down nicely.

Both have lead to enormous successes in the private realm.

It's 100% correct.

With nothing produced by the productive, the moocher class would have nobody from whom to leech.

 

[Gadawg73]

You draw your money from our society and you are expected to contribute back. It is part of being a member of a civilization. Those who exact the most from our society are expected to contribute more. That is where the wealthy come in.

Nobody exists in a vacuum......you are part of the whole

Gubmint produces nothing of added value for the economy...EVER.

Every bit of gubmint's "income" is first earned by the productive, from which it is expropriated.

Politicians, bureaucrats and the rest of the moocher class can suck a big vacuum on the iron sausage, without the industrialist and entrepreneur.

That's completely incorrect.

And educated population and a complex, well made highway and road system shoots your theory down nicely.

Both have lead to enormous successes in the private realm.

Most highway projects are pork. If you do not know about the crumbling infrastructure we have nationwide with our highway bridges then let me tell you.
A catastrophe waiting to happen.
The problem we have is transfer of cash. Government takes taxes from you, collects it and takes a % of it to give to bureaucrats and then transfers the other 65% to other people that produce nothing, no highways, no nothing.
65% of government these days is taking the $ from one person and giving it to another.
in 2022 90% of government will be that.
And we now borrow 40% of the $$ spent.
How is that "enormous successes"?

 

[Oddball]

Gubmint produces nothing of added value for the economy...EVER.

Every bit of gubmint's "income" is first earned by the productive, from which it is expropriated.

Politicians, bureaucrats and the rest of the moocher class can suck a big vacuum on the iron sausage, without the industrialist and entrepreneur.

That's completely incorrect.

And educated population and a complex, well made highway and road system shoots your theory down nicely.

Both have lead to enormous successes in the private realm.

Most highway projects are pork. If you do not know about the crumbling infrastructure we have nationwide with our highway bridges then let me tell you.
A catastrophe waiting to happen.
The problem we have is transfer of cash. Government takes taxes from you, collects it and takes a % of it to give to bureaucrats and then transfers the other 65% to other people that produce nothing, no highways, no nothing.
65% of government these days is taking the $ from one person and giving it to another.
in 2022 90% of government will be that.
And we now borrow 40% of the $$ spent.
How is that "enormous successes"?

And let's not even get started on all the taxes taken in from America's independent truckers.

 

[JRK]

That's completely incorrect.

And educated population and a complex, well made highway and road system shoots your theory down nicely.

Both have lead to enormous successes in the private realm.

Most highway projects are pork. If you do not know about the crumbling infrastructure we have nationwide with our highway bridges then let me tell you.
A catastrophe waiting to happen.
The problem we have is transfer of cash. Government takes taxes from you, collects it and takes a % of it to give to bureaucrats and then transfers the other 65% to other people that produce nothing, no highways, no nothing.
65% of government these days is taking the $ from one person and giving it to another.
in 2022 90% of government will be that.
And we now borrow 40% of the $$ spent.
How is that "enormous successes"?

And let's not even get started on all the taxes taken in from America's independent truckers.

and you knock it out of the park
There lies our problem
you either create wealth or you destroy it
No matter which side of the debate you stand on, we all should be united on this one
i am talking about a retiree
a person who was not blessed with the health that I have been and I am a cancer survivor
give people a chance, help them when they find a moment when they cannot help them selves
but not for life
no excuses

 

[NYcarbineer]

You draw your money from our society and you are expected to contribute back. It is part of being a member of a civilization. Those who exact the most from our society are expected to contribute more. That is where the wealthy come in.

Nobody exists in a vacuum......you are part of the whole

Gubmint produces nothing of added value for the economy...EVER.

Every bit of gubmint's "income" is first earned by the productive, from which it is expropriated.

Politicians, bureaucrats and the rest of the moocher class can suck a big vacuum on the iron sausage, without the industrialist and entrepreneur.

Education adds no value to the population, the economy?

Seriously?