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.
In other words, the Republican legislature of 2001 passed a 2011 tax hike.
Essentially, yes. This a problem many of us on the right had with this. Bush did this to appease Democrats... which was a mistake. Look where we are now.
Are you serious? YOU JUST AGREED WITH THE POINT WE ARE TRYING TO MAKE! THANK YOU!!!
Dems are trying to reduce the tax hike passed in 2001 that kicks in for 2011.
Essentially, yes. This a problem many of us on the right had with this. Bush did this to appease Democrats... which was a mistake. Look where we are now.
Are you serious? YOU JUST AGREED WITH THE POINT WE ARE TRYING TO MAKE! THANK YOU!!!
Dems are trying to reduce the tax hike passed in 2001 that kicks in for 2011.
Good Lord you are dumb.
They are going to be reduced from the rates they rise to at the end of the year.
Then they are not a tax CUT. Doublespeak and obfuscation, the hallmarks of modern politics.
I know this is difficult for you to grasp. But Dems just voted for REDUCING the taxes for people under 250k, REDUCE compared to what they are suppose to be next year. It doesn't matter what they are now, they are not voting on that. If they do nothing, the tax rate will be higher next year as previously planned, so they are trying to vote to reduce that. Keep spinning though.
"Friends and neighbors complain that taxes are indeed very heavy, and if those laid on by the government were the only ones we had to pay, we might the more easily discharge them; but we have many others, and much more grievous to some of us. We are taxed twice as much by our idleness, three times as much by our pride, and four times as much by our folly."- Benjamin Franklin
I'm outta here... this guy is too stupid for words. He thinks if something doesn't happen to him.. it actually does because it didn't.
What a classic piece of misunderstanding. If people are selling an asset now because they believe the sale will be taxed more heavily in the future, the underlying price of the asset doesn't change. The stock market may or may not decline in the short term as a result, but the fundamental value of the market doesn't change.
This is the kind of ill-conceived logic one gets when such a large sector of your economy is based on the speculative trading of savings.
What an idiot.
yes, you are an idiot.
There is no "underlying price of an asset". A share of stock is worth what people think it is worth.
Speaking of idiots: you are wrong. The underlying asset is the physical capital and its potential output.
Physical capital has value.
You, on the other hand, are completely useless.
What an idiot.
yes, you are an idiot.
There is no "underlying price of an asset". A share of stock is worth what people think it is worth.
Speaking of idiots: you are wrong. The underlying asset is the physical capital and its potential output.
Physical capital has value.
You, on the other hand, are completely useless.
Thank you for proving my point. You are indeed a moron. Note your use of the term "potential output." What is the potential? I don't know. You don't know. We all make educated guesses. Thus the perceived value.
Note also that "physical capital" is meaningless. If you mean physical assets these also vary. Gold is about as hard a physical asset as it gets. Two years ago it was worth $900/oz. Today it is about 1400/oz. It is worth precisely what people are willing to pay for it. Like any other asset.
Game, set, match. Go on to another thread before you are humiliated further.
What an idiot.
yes, you are an idiot.
There is no "underlying price of an asset". A share of stock is worth what people think it is worth.
Speaking of idiots: you are wrong. The underlying asset is the physical capital and its potential output.
Physical capital has value.
You, on the other hand, are completely useless.
Ignore Rabbi, you'll develop an ulcer trying to have a rational discussion with him. He's EASILY the most stubborn/blatantly incorrect member of this site.
yes, you are an idiot.
Speaking of idiots: you are wrong. The underlying asset is the physical capital and its potential output.
Physical capital has value.
You, on the other hand, are completely useless.
Thank you for proving my point. You are indeed a moron. Note your use of the term "potential output." What is the potential? I don't know. You don't know. We all make educated guesses. Thus the perceived value.
Note also that "physical capital" is meaningless. If you mean physical assets these also vary. Gold is about as hard a physical asset as it gets. Two years ago it was worth $900/oz. Today it is about 1400/oz. It is worth precisely what people are willing to pay for it. Like any other asset.
Game, set, match. Go on to another thread before you are humiliated further.
Speaking of humiliation.
Rabbi can't do basic math
yes, you are an idiot.
Speaking of idiots: you are wrong. The underlying asset is the physical capital and its potential output.
Physical capital has value.
You, on the other hand, are completely useless.
Ignore Rabbi, you'll develop an ulcer trying to have a rational discussion with him. He's EASILY the most stubborn/blatantly incorrect member of this site.
Translation: Ignore Rabbi because his knowledge of facts and ability to debate far exceeds both of ours put together.
Thanks for making that clear.
Essentially, yes. This a problem many of us on the right had with this. Bush did this to appease Democrats... which was a mistake. Look where we are now.
Bush didn't do it to appease the Dems. "he" did it because they were trying to do an end-around of the Byrd rule and PayGo.
PayGo was a myth... an accounting trick. Whatever... it resides up there in unicorn lands alongside the Clinton surplus.'
Bush didn't do it to appease the Dems. "he" did it because they were trying to do an end-around of the Byrd rule and PayGo.
PayGo was a myth... an accounting trick. Whatever... it resides up there in unicorn lands alongside the Clinton surplus.'
The surplus was not a myth. In both 1999 and 2000, total federal receipts were higher than total federal expenses. The difference between the two was the surplus - which is why the debt held by the public declined during those years.
They are going to be reduced from the rates they rise to at the end of the year.
Then they are not a tax CUT. Doublespeak and obfuscation, the hallmarks of modern politics.
I know this is difficult for you to grasp. But Dems just voted for REDUCING the taxes for people under 250k, REDUCE compared to what they are suppose to be next year. It doesn't matter what they are now, they are not voting on that. If they do nothing, the tax rate will be higher next year as previously planned, so they are trying to vote to reduce that. Keep spinning though.
[Thank you for proving my point. You are indeed a moron. Note your use of the term "potential output." What is the potential?
Put another way... if I as a landlord tell my Tennant's that the slated rent increase for 1/1/2011 is canceled, this means I lowered their rent?
How stupid does one have to be to believe this? The rent is still $900.
Come on people.
If the tenant signs a lease that says "you'll pay $1,000 per month for the next ten years, then $1,200 every year thereafter". and you sign that lease...
and he comes back after a decade and says "nah, let's keep your rent at $1,000 despite the lease" he has reduced your expected rent.
He has reduced you expected rent?
Can you spend expected income?
Then they are not a tax CUT. Doublespeak and obfuscation, the hallmarks of modern politics.
I know this is difficult for you to grasp. But Dems just voted for REDUCING the taxes for people under 250k, REDUCE compared to what they are suppose to be next year. It doesn't matter what they are now, they are not voting on that. If they do nothing, the tax rate will be higher next year as previously planned, so they are trying to vote to reduce that. Keep spinning though.
Nope. I grasp it just fine but you seem to be having a bit of difficulty so I'll try to simplify this for you. Let's pretend...
The price of an apple is $1.00.
The grocer tells you that he's decided to raise the price of an apple to $1.25 next week.
Next week the grocer tells you that he changed his mind and will NOT raise the price of an apple to $1.25 because he figured out that people will avoid buying apples and it will hurt his business.
Next week the price of an apple is $1.00
Ok.. so now you have been hoodwinked into thinking you received something when the price of an apple didn't budge. You may now kiss the grocer's feet.
I know this is difficult for you to grasp. But Dems just voted for REDUCING the taxes for people under 250k, REDUCE compared to what they are suppose to be next year. It doesn't matter what they are now, they are not voting on that. If they do nothing, the tax rate will be higher next year as previously planned, so they are trying to vote to reduce that. Keep spinning though.
Nope. I grasp it just fine but you seem to be having a bit of difficulty so I'll try to simplify this for you. Let's pretend...
The price of an apple is $1.00.
The grocer tells you that he's decided to raise the price of an apple to $1.25 next week.
Next week the grocer tells you that he changed his mind and will NOT raise the price of an apple to $1.25 because he figured out that people will avoid buying apples and it will hurt his business.
Next week the price of an apple is $1.00
Ok.. so now you have been hoodwinked into thinking you received something when the price of an apple didn't budge. You may now kiss the grocer's feet.
The thing you're not understanding is the grocer had to make the conscious decision to NOT raise that price like he intended next week. Just like congress needs to vote to change the course of action which is toward higher taxes. So, if congress does nothing, are they to blame for the tax increase next year? An action must be taken in order for taxes to be lower next year, where as no action results in a tax increase as originally planned.
It doesn't really matter that it just looks like its continuing the tax breaks we have now, it matters that they are voting to reduce our taxes for next year, which will happen to be the same(vry similar) as the tax breaks we have now. Again, it's a game of Semantics and to say that Dems are going to raise taxes is a silly lie.
