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.
Without the stock market, publicly held corporations would not be practical since there would be no market for the shares of ownership. In essence business would have to be owned by the government, single proprietors, partnerships, or private corporations. None of these options would be workable in our economy.
I see no problem with that, and more of a problem with billions out of circulation, trillions given away and banks folding or being bailed out, where the loans should come from after being scrutinized by Bankers for credit worthiness. Single proprietors are the Libertarian way of individualism America was built on, correct? Cons love it! Government not be involved, as I just said separation of corporate & state. A business makes it on it's own with good fiscal responsibility watched by lender banks, or it fails, it is not my problem. The more small businesses created, the more workers that are needed.
I agree, the more small business, the better. The problem that a small business runs into as it grows is that it can not raise enough capital by borrowing from the bank. Then there is a need for new investors which leads to a publicly owned business which means you need a market for the shares of ownership.
Never read shit from the HuffPuff, it rots what little brain you have.
I was going to read the post, started to, got distracted by the kids and saw where the post came from.
The political rhetoric is endless from the Liberals.
While most Americans have no chance of earning or inheriting significant wealth, 68 percent want the estate tax eliminated (and 31 percent consider it to be the "worst" and "least fair" tax levied by the federal government). Most believe that limiting this tax, which affects only 0.2 percent of the population, should be the top priority of the current Congress."I know not why any plant or herb of the field should be a greater luxury in one country than another; but an overgrown estate in either is a luxury at all times, and, as such, is the proper object of taxation. It is, therefore, right to take those kind tax-making gentlemen up on their own word, and argue on the principle themselves have laid down, that of taxing luxuries... Admitting that any annual sum... is necessary or sufficient for the support of a family, consequently the second [such sum] is of the nature of a luxury, the third still more so, and by proceeding on, we shall at last arrive at a sum that may not improperly be called a prohibitable luxury. It would be impolitic to set bounds to property acquired by industry, and therefore it is right to place the prohibition beyond the probable acquisition to which industry can extend; but there ought to be a limit to property or the accumulation of it by bequest"
--Thomas Paine; from Rights of Man, Part the Second
Governments don't pay off their debt, they just refinance and pay interest. There is nothing wrong with this as long as lenders have faith that the government will meet their obligations.Obama added $3T in new debt, and now he wants Repubilcans to pay for it with higher taxes.
OK, we have debt we have to pay for, so we all pay the same amount as the poorest among us, if it takes forever to pay it off. You shouldn't have to pay more than the poorest among us.
I think you are missing the point. The primary reason businesses need additional capital is not to keep the business afloat but rather to expand the business. The kind economic expansion we have seen over the last two hundred years would be impossible without public ownership and public ownership would not be possible without a market to sell shares of the businesses.I see no problem with that, and more of a problem with billions out of circulation, trillions given away and banks folding or being bailed out, where the loans should come from after being scrutinized by Bankers for credit worthiness. Single proprietors are the Libertarian way of individualism America was built on, correct? Cons love it! Government not be involved, as I just said separation of corporate & state. A business makes it on it's own with good fiscal responsibility watched by lender banks, or it fails, it is not my problem. The more small businesses created, the more workers that are needed.
I agree, the more small business, the better. The problem that a small business runs into as it grows is that it can not raise enough capital by borrowing from the bank. Then there is a need for new investors which leads to a publicly owned business which means you need a market for the shares of ownership.
Nope. The Stock Market should be illegal, for the very reasons I cited. Let the owner of the business who can't get a bank loan, fail and someone else replace him. That is capitalism, filling the need. If a Bank looks at a business and says it is a bad loan risk, why should that company be allowed to sell shares when it is about to fail. That is fraud.
Later all! Dinner calls.............
In U.S., Tax Issues Rank as Top Priority for Lame-Duck CongressWhile most Americans have no chance of earning or inheriting significant wealth, 68 percent want the estate tax eliminated (and 31 percent consider it to be the "worst" and "least fair" tax levied by the federal government). Most believe that limiting this tax, which affects only 0.2 percent of the population, should be the top priority of the current Congress."I know not why any plant or herb of the field should be a greater luxury in one country than another; but an overgrown estate in either is a luxury at all times, and, as such, is the proper object of taxation. It is, therefore, right to take those kind tax-making gentlemen up on their own word, and argue on the principle themselves have laid down, that of taxing luxuries... Admitting that any annual sum... is necessary or sufficient for the support of a family, consequently the second [such sum] is of the nature of a luxury, the third still more so, and by proceeding on, we shall at last arrive at a sum that may not improperly be called a prohibitable luxury. It would be impolitic to set bounds to property acquired by industry, and therefore it is right to place the prohibition beyond the probable acquisition to which industry can extend; but there ought to be a limit to property or the accumulation of it by bequest"
--Thomas Paine; from Rights of Man, Part the Second
Got a source for that? Study on the effects of unAmerican propaganda, perhaps?
European nations already have all the new and higher taxes American socialists want, and they have no military on par with the US, and they are still insolvent.
It's not the taxes.
Liberals are up to their eyeballs in crony/corporate love sharing too, shintao. Corporate welfare is blind also when it comes to party lines.
To cut a deficit, there are only two options. Cut spending or increase revenue. If Congress could cut spending without wrecking the economy, then that would be a preferable solution. However, when Congress cannot cut spending the only alternative it to increase taxes.European nations already have all the new and higher taxes American socialists want, and they have no military on par with the US, and they are still insolvent.
It's not the taxes.
The income tax has never been lower. Nearly half the country pays nothing due tax credits, deductions, and low rates. The sensible political solution would be a package of tax increases accompanied by spending cuts.
The poor dude making $230 just for filing is just as unfairly disgusting as the $100 millionaire paying a paltry 16% compared to his middle class neighbors 32%.
The answer is not higher taxes any more than the answer is lower taxes. The answer is fair taxes that don't cost us billion$ every year to do the fucking paper-work on.
7 - 7 on 3
European nations already have all the new and higher taxes American socialists want, and they have no military on par with the US, and they are still insolvent.
It's not the taxes.
A valid point. Spending is out of control. We need to trim our over-seas adventures and quit borrowing money from China to give to Israel.
But this thread is calling for another discussion of taxes.
Although the simplicity of the plan is appealing, it would be a huge tax break for the wealthy and a large tax burden on the poor. For the poor, it would be equivalent to a 7% increase in the cost of living.To cut a deficit, there are only two options. Cut spending or increase revenue. If Congress could cut spending without wrecking the economy, then that would be a preferable solution. However, when Congress cannot cut spending the only alternative it to increase taxes.European nations already have all the new and higher taxes American socialists want, and they have no military on par with the US, and they are still insolvent.
It's not the taxes.
The income tax has never been lower. Nearly half the country pays nothing due tax credits, deductions, and low rates. The sensible political solution would be a package of tax increases accompanied by spending cuts.
The sensible solution would be fair taxes, combined with a hard look at every spending program, including the military.
The best idea I've ever heard for fair taxes is 7 - 7 on 3.
No corporate income tax. No personal income tax on the first $3 million.
Put a 7% general sales tax on every transaction and a 'winners' tax of 7% on personal income above and beyond $3 million per year.
No loop holes, no bullshit, no yearly paperwork unless you make more than $3 million per year = a much smaller IRS bureaucracy to pay for.
The poor dude making $230 just for filing is just as unfairly disgusting as the $100 millionaire paying a paltry 16% compared to his middle class neighbors 32%.
The answer is not higher taxes any more than the answer is lower taxes. The answer is fair taxes that don't cost us billion$ every year to do the fucking paper-work on.
7 - 7 on 3
" is just as unfairly disgusting as the $100 millionaire paying a paltry 16% compared to his middle class neighbors 32%."
This statement drives me nuts.....Why does the left get so bent out of shape with the rich being taxed at a lower rate?....
If I had made 100 million or am being taxed on $100 million at 16% that means I'm paying the government $16 million in taxes.....that doesn't seem to be enough for you people?.
Someone making and all of us here are, below $100 million pay a higher percentage but on lower earnings....If you live in NY on top of the Federal we pay massive State and local taxes it's closing in on 50% or more of our earned income....
If you have a bitch go after government and complain about it.Going after the people with
money who pick up a HUGE portion of the tax bill doesn't make sense.To punish them will only cause people not to make as much as before if they have to give most of it to the government.Destroy the rich and you kill us all.Who do you think the government will go after to get their pound of flesh?.
European nations already have all the new and higher taxes American socialists want, and they have no military on par with the US, and they are still insolvent.
It's not the taxes.
A valid point. Spending is out of control. We need to trim our over-seas adventures and quit borrowing money from China to give to Israel.
But this thread is calling for another discussion of taxes.
Wow... gotta make sure we blame it on the Jews huh?
Although the simplicity of the plan is appealing, it would be a huge tax break for the wealthy and a large tax burden on the poor. For the poor, it would be equivalent to a 7% increase in the cost of living.To cut a deficit, there are only two options. Cut spending or increase revenue. If Congress could cut spending without wrecking the economy, then that would be a preferable solution. However, when Congress cannot cut spending the only alternative it to increase taxes.
The income tax has never been lower. Nearly half the country pays nothing due tax credits, deductions, and low rates. The sensible political solution would be a package of tax increases accompanied by spending cuts.
The sensible solution would be fair taxes, combined with a hard look at every spending program, including the military.
The best idea I've ever heard for fair taxes is 7 - 7 on 3.
No corporate income tax. No personal income tax on the first $3 million.
Put a 7% general sales tax on every transaction and a 'winners' tax of 7% on personal income above and beyond $3 million per year.
No loop holes, no bullshit, no yearly paperwork unless you make more than $3 million per year = a much smaller IRS bureaucracy to pay for.
Show us real spending cuts first.
