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.
He is looking more and more like a lost opportunity.You aRE GETTING RECORD REVENUEYou will need more revenue if you are really committed to reducing the deficit.
It's like H. Ross Perot said. " they ( the govt) can waste all the money there is."
Best solution is to let govt spending grow 1% a year and not one penny more until debt is 100 % gone.
"If capitalists can make more money because of taxes ..." Get it? Capitalists have to see a direct connection between their taxes and their income.
don't get it please try to explain.
In dollars figures, how much Federal tax should person making $50,000.00/yr pay.
To believe that, you'd have to believe the firm isn't already charging its customers as much as it can. Do you think a firm can raise its prices at will without the risk of reducing its revenue by driving away some customers?
Dear, as i said, you are an economic pure illiterate. Its like you are a child. An apple costs a dollar and a Rolls Royce costs $300,000. Each price reflects costs. Its not coincidence that Rolls costs more than apple. The guy who sells the apple cant charge a penny more lest he be undersold by competition. His profits are next to nothing. Add a tax or a fertilizer and he has to raise the price by the exact amount of the tax or fertilizer cost to maintain his next to nothing profits.
Do you understand now?
Unless he can convince consumers that his apples are tastier and more juicy than his competitions. A Rolls Royce figuratively is tastier and more juicy than a Dodge.
dear, in a scientific experiment you hold all variables constant except the ones in question. Do you understand?
It's not a scientific experiment, it's marketing.
no dear our subject was not marketing, it was whether prices reflect costs as a general principle.
He is looking more and more like a lost opportunity.You aRE GETTING RECORD REVENUEYou will need more revenue if you are really committed to reducing the deficit.
It's like H. Ross Perot said. " they ( the govt) can waste all the money there is."
Best solution is to let govt spending grow 1% a year and not one penny more until debt is 100 % gone.
yes but don't forget that Newt had a BBA that passed House and fell one vote short in Senate. If liberal devils had not killed that we'd be home free now instead of 20 trillion in debt!
That was the best opportunity in our lifetime to in effect make liberalism illegal, thanks to Newt!!
No, it's perceived value to the consumer as well as name recognition.
"If capitalists can make more money because of taxes ..." Get it? Capitalists have to see a direct connection between their taxes and their income.
don't get it please try to explain.
Try to understand.
Taxes used to increase the disposable income of American consumers will flow to capitalists' profits.
.
Taxes used to increase the disposable income of American consumers will flow to capitalists' profits.
In dollars figures, how much Federal tax should person making $50,000.00/yr pay.
their share of the $4 trillion fed budget is about $30,000 according to my calculations.
How much should a rich person pay for groceries as compared to a poor person?
So you state a wealthy person should pay more than a middle class person which they do now. We've now come full circle in our debate.
Capitalists have to see a direct connection between their taxes and their income.
NOOOOooooooo.........Increasing taxes will ADD to the debt because it slows the economy and causes more unemployment. Less people working, less people paying taxes. Even the idiot Obama understands this simple fact.You will need more revenue if you are really committed to reducing the deficit.
Indeed. Our deficit and debt are the result of our wealth coddling tax policies. If we want to eliminate the deficit and reduce the debt, we have to raise taxes.
tax hikes did not cause more unemployment.
numbers don't lie....in the cases she cited with taxes being raised, unemployment went down..... facts are facts. Simple enough?tax hikes did not cause more unemployment.
it is obvious that we have the highest corporate taxes in the world and it causes our corporations to move out. When they move out it causes unemployment!!
When you tax people they spend less or buy less. That means manufacturers need to produce less and employ less. When you employ less you cause unemployment?
Simple enough?
For simple folks, maybe. Still, I just gave two examples where taxes were raised and unemployment dropped. So you can spout your "theories" all you want -- the real world proves your "theories" are pipe dreams.tax hikes did not cause more unemployment.
it is obvious that we have the highest corporate taxes in the world and it causes our corporations to move out. When they move out it causes unemployment!!
When you tax people they spend less or buy less. That means manufacturers need to produce less and employ less. When you employ less you cause unemployment?
Simple enough?
numbers don't lie....in the cases she cited with taxes being raised, unemployment went down..... facts are facts. Simple enough?tax hikes did not cause more unemployment.
it is obvious that we have the highest corporate taxes in the world and it causes our corporations to move out. When they move out it causes unemployment!!
When you tax people they spend less or buy less. That means manufacturers need to produce less and employ less. When you employ less you cause unemployment?
Simple enough?
numbers don't lie....in the cases she cited with taxes being raised, unemployment went down..... facts are facts. Simple enough?tax hikes did not cause more unemployment.
it is obvious that we have the highest corporate taxes in the world and it causes our corporations to move out. When they move out it causes unemployment!!
When you tax people they spend less or buy less. That means manufacturers need to produce less and employ less. When you employ less you cause unemployment?
Simple enough?
, such as yourself knows the unemployment rate doesn't take into consideration the RECORD HIGH LONG TERM UNEMPLOYED, you liberal pond scum think everyone is as dishonest as you?
For simple folks, maybe. Still, I just gave two examples where taxes were raised and unemployment dropped. So you can spout your "theories" all you want -- the real world proves your "theories" are pipe dreams.tax hikes did not cause more unemployment.
it is obvious that we have the highest corporate taxes in the world and it causes our corporations to move out. When they move out it causes unemployment!!
When you tax people they spend less or buy less. That means manufacturers need to produce less and employ less. When you employ less you cause unemployment?
Simple enough?
numbers don't lie....in the cases she cited with taxes being raised, unemployment went down..... facts are facts. Simple enough?tax hikes did not cause more unemployment.
it is obvious that we have the highest corporate taxes in the world and it causes our corporations to move out. When they move out it causes unemployment!!
When you tax people they spend less or buy less. That means manufacturers need to produce less and employ less. When you employ less you cause unemployment?
Simple enough?
