Buffet rule passage would cost us jobs

[starcraftzzz]

Sure I can...

The entire Departments of Energy, Commerce, Labor, Education, HHS, HUD, DHS & TSA...Then we can extensively devolve to the states or privatize most of the DoT and sell off BLM lands...Then we can junk chickenshit trifles like the CPB/NPR/PBS, NEA, NEH, EEOC, NLRB...After that we can shitcan the DEA and BATF...

That enough for ya, comrade?

ROTFL I see so according to you education, energy production, healthcare, eating, food saftey, roads, railroads, health research, and having shelter are all a waste.
So according to you no one sohuld buy food because it is a waste.
Come back when you've got a clue.

Just because the feds don't piss away zillions of dollars on something doesn't mean that states, localities and private interests won't do them.
Speaking of getting a clue.

I asked you to name wasteful spending of which you included spending that provides doctors their education, workers their food, houses their energy, people with health care, transportation etc etc. So according to you we should all never eat because buying food is wasteful.

 

[Oddball]

Now let's deal with reality........

And the reason for this is simple. When the wealthy keep more of their money through cuts in the tax rate, they pretty much just sit on the money. Now, when tax rates are higher, they still find ways around paying those high rates, but they actually have to put their money to work which in turn leads to a growing economy. This is what most people don't understand. Regardless of how high or low the tax rates are, the wealthy still will only end up paying a certain percentage. This has been proven over the years. The difference is that when rates are higher, the money actually must be put into play. To prove this is not happening currently, all one need do is look at all the cash that American companies are sitting on. They can afford to sit on this money because there is no downside to doing so. If they were at risk of losing it, they would put it into play which in turn would increase GDP and get the economy moving again.

That's one of the most convoluted and nonsensical posts I've read in some time.

Sillybooboo...Izzat you?

 

[Oddball]

ROTFL I see so according to you education, energy production, healthcare, eating, food saftey, roads, railroads, health research, and having shelter are all a waste.
So according to you no one sohuld buy food because it is a waste.
Come back when you've got a clue.

Just because the feds don't piss away zillions of dollars on something doesn't mean that states, localities and private interests won't do them.
Speaking of getting a clue.

I asked you to name wasteful spending of which you included spending that provides doctors their education, workers their food, houses their energy, people with health care, transportation etc etc. So according to you we should all never eat because buying food is wasteful.

The spending is waste because money that would've been left in state, local and private hands gets expropriated by federal tax bureaucrats, to pay federal department bureaucrats, who line their pockets first before they arbitrarily decide who supposedly needs the money the most.

I'd draw a picture for you, but you're obviously too thick to understand.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I cannot believe that claiming taking wealth from the private sector will not be a job killer.

If you take 50,000 from a person who earned 1 million dollars a year (5%) it will effect some-ones bottom line

That wealth will no longer be put to work.

We were within 163 billion of a balanced budget in 2007 with Iraq at its highest level of winning that war

More spin fron the Dems

Go back to 07 levels, add 5%, that makes the defict 500 billion with a real 5% UE rate

Thats the fix
Then tax reform that eliminates income/capital/corporate tax with a Fair tax type system and we balance the budget

It is that simple

Create wealth

2 things.

1. You shouldn't blindly believe every argument that's thrown your way because the one you're using isn't a very good one.

2. You spelled 'affect' wrong.

1. So we should NOT create wealth?
2. The sentence should read "you spelled 'affect' INCORRECTLY......
Mess with the bull. You get the horns.

 

[kiwiman127]

As the chart I posted with Post 50 clearly indicates that the OP is conjecture that certainly didn't rely on historical facts.

 

[starcraftzzz]

Just because the feds don't piss away zillions of dollars on something doesn't mean that states, localities and private interests won't do them.
Speaking of getting a clue.

I asked you to name wasteful spending of which you included spending that provides doctors their education, workers their food, houses their energy, people with health care, transportation etc etc. So according to you we should all never eat because buying food is wasteful.

The spending is waste because money that would've been left in state, local and private hands gets expropriated by federal tax bureaucrats, to pay federal department bureaucrats, who line their pockets first before they arbitrarily decide who supposedly needs the money the most.
I'd draw a picture for you, but you're obviously too thick to understand.

ROTFL again according to you we should all never eat because buying food is wasteful.
According to you spending that provides doctors their education, workers their food, houses their energy, people with health care, transportation etc etc is wasteful.

 

[starcraftzzz]

I cannot believe that claiming taking wealth from the private sector will not be a job killer.
If you take 50,000 from a person who earned 1 million dollars a year (5%) it will effect some-ones bottom line
That wealth will no longer be put to work.
We were within 163 billion of a balanced budget in 2007 with Iraq at its highest level of winning that war
More spin fron the Dems
Go back to 07 levels, add 5%, that makes the defict 500 billion with a real 5% UE rate
Thats the fix
Then tax reform that eliminates income/capital/corporate tax with a Fair tax type system and we balance the budget
It is that simple
Create wealth

2 things.
1. You shouldn't blindly believe every argument that's thrown your way because the one you're using isn't a very good one.
2. You spelled 'affect' wrong.

1. So we should NOT create wealth?
2. The sentence should read "you spelled 'affect' INCORRECTLY......
Mess with the bull. You get the horns.

1) You completely missed the point the things the OP suggested are things that actually hurt the creation of wealth. your position AKA the OP position is tantamount to not creating wealth

 

[thereisnospoon]

Your thread is with respect and I am glad to say is about the subject

Capital Gains is wealth that has been taxed once at least typically

My point is wealth lost to taxes is welath that cannot create anything. Trickle down works
What do you think of capitial gains treated as income?
or
A complete overhaul of the tax code to capture those taxes Like Florida does?

Do you understand capital gains? The gain is profit and has not been taxed. It should be treated as income.

Trickle down has not worked unless you consider reducing the purchasing power of the middle class.

Cap Gains ARE taxed. Money that was taxed when it was earned. What makes you libs think the government is entitled to a second bite at the apple?
What makes you think that high taxes are good for the economy?
What makes you think high taxes will benefit YOU?
What makes you think removing wealth from the private sector is a good thing?
What makes you think our already bloated and overspending government will act any differently with even MORE of our money?
Just render DIRECT answers to each question. Do not pontificate or deflect.
Answer the questions or be silent.

 

[Oddball]

I asked you to name wasteful spending of which you included spending that provides doctors their education, workers their food, houses their energy, people with health care, transportation etc etc. So according to you we should all never eat because buying food is wasteful.

The spending is waste because money that would've been left in state, local and private hands gets expropriated by federal tax bureaucrats, to pay federal department bureaucrats, who line their pockets first before they arbitrarily decide who supposedly needs the money the most.
I'd draw a picture for you, but you're obviously too thick to understand.

ROTFL again according to you we should all never eat because buying food is wasteful.
According to you spending that provides doctors their education, workers their food, houses their energy, people with health care, transportation etc etc is wasteful.

Where do you think the money comes from to pay the bureaucrats to allegedly provide you with all those goodies in the first place, you idjit?

Santa Claus?...Lucky the Leprechaun?...The Tooth Fairy?

I was right...You can't even have a picture drawn for you.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I cannot believe that claiming taking wealth from the private sector will not be a job killer.

If you take 50,000 from a person who earned 1 million dollars a year (5%) it will effect some-ones bottom line

That wealth will no longer be put to work.

We were within 163 billion of a balanced budget in 2007 with Iraq at its highest level of winning that war

More spin fron the Dems

Go back to 07 levels, add 5%, that makes the defict 500 billion with a real 5% UE rate

Thats the fix
Then tax reform that eliminates income/capital/corporate tax with a Fair tax type system and we balance the budget

It is that simple

Create wealth

Oh, I know! Because the people with the wealth have done such a SPIFFY job of trickling down the wealth.

Hmm. Jobs come from poor people?
That's wonderful.

 

[Zander]

 

[starcraftzzz]

Your thread is with respect and I am glad to say is about the subject

Capital Gains is wealth that has been taxed once at least typically

My point is wealth lost to taxes is welath that cannot create anything. Trickle down works
What do you think of capitial gains treated as income?
or
A complete overhaul of the tax code to capture those taxes Like Florida does?

Do you understand capital gains? The gain is profit and has not been taxed. It should be treated as income.

Trickle down has not worked unless you consider reducing the purchasing power of the middle class.

Cap Gains ARE taxed. Money that was taxed when it was earned. What makes you libs think the government is entitled to a second bite at the apple?

No dumbass money that you make from Capital gains investments has not been taxed. You're statment is like saying that since my incoem last year was taxed my income this year will be double taxed.

What makes you think that high taxes are good for the economy?

The fact that periods with high taxes saw more GDP growth, more employment, and less poverty then periods with low rates. The fact that the rich invested their money in the housing bubble; also the fact that higher taxes on the rich results in lower taxes on the poor and more services meaning a better economy for 80% of Americans

.
What makes you think high taxes will benefit YOU?

The fact that higher taxes on the very rich results in me paying less taxes or having more services. Furthermore higher taxes on the rich does not decrease their living standards given that they are so rich.

What makes you think removing wealth from the private sector is a good thing?

The fact that the private sector invested all its wealth into a housing bubble of which caused 10% unemployment.

What makes you think our already bloated and overspending government will act any differently with even MORE of our money?

The fact that the govenrment already better manages money then the private sector, government healthcare, charity, courts, utilities, energy production, retirement, schools, transportation, insurance, and prisons are all 5-50% more efficient then the private sector
So plz come back when you've got a clue

 

[Listening]

ROTFL again according to you we should all never eat because buying food is wasteful.
According to you spending that provides doctors their education, workers their food, houses their energy, people with health care, transportation etc etc is wasteful.

It has become quite clear that the Dr. Seuss books your read on politics are just about on your level.

Now, when you start the series on economics, let us know.

It will be good for a laugh.

 

[Listening]

The fact that the govenrment already better manages money then the private sector, government healthcare, charity, courts, utilities, energy production, retirement, schools, transportation, insurance, and prisons are all 5-50% more efficient then the private sector
So plz come back when you've got a clue

Please start a thread on this one and post your claims.

This should be rich.

The government manages money better than the private sector.

ROTFLMAO

You are past being a jackass and are now officially a zealot.

Only the biggest of Obamadicksuckers would say something this stupid.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Now let's deal with reality........

And the reason for this is simple. When the wealthy keep more of their money through cuts in the tax rate, they pretty much just sit on the money. Now, when tax rates are higher, they still find ways around paying those high rates, but they actually have to put their money to work which in turn leads to a growing economy. This is what most people don't understand. Regardless of how high or low the tax rates are, the wealthy still will only end up paying a certain percentage. This has been proven over the years. The difference is that when rates are higher, the money actually must be put into play. To prove this is not happening currently, all one need do is look at all the cash that American companies are sitting on. They can afford to sit on this money because there is no downside to doing so. If they were at risk of losing it, they would put it into play which in turn would increase GDP and get the economy moving again.

Holy shit. You must be dizzy from all that spin..
SO let's be clear....When the private sector HAS more disposable income, or wealth it stops spending and as you so eloquently put it, "sits on the money"....
Then....when the owners of wealth are forced to surrender more of their wealth through taxation, they suddenly have the urge to cast the mattress aside and spend more of their wealth?
Is that the story you're selling to the publisher? The title of your book should be "The Unexpurgated Guide to Strong Economic Policy for the Galactcally Stupid".

 

[starcraftzzz]

ROTFL again according to you we should all never eat because buying food is wasteful.
According to you spending that provides doctors their education, workers their food, houses their energy, people with health care, transportation etc etc is wasteful.

It has become quite clear that the Dr. Seuss books your read on politics are just about on your level.

Now, when you start the series on economics, let us know.

It will be good for a laugh.

RTOFL it is amzing that you think producing food is not a good idea.
I mean you're so stupid that you think starving is a good thing

 

[starcraftzzz]

The fact that the govenrment already better manages money then the private sector, government healthcare, charity, courts, utilities, energy production, retirement, schools, transportation, insurance, and prisons are all 5-50% more efficient then the private sector
So plz come back when you've got a clue

Please start a thread on this one and post your claims.

This should be rich.

The government manages money better than the private sector.

ROTFLMAO

You are past being a jackass and are now officially a zealot.

Only the biggest of Obamadicksuckers would say something this stupid.

ROTFL like always you are a dumbass who has an IQ of 50
Workers Comp Scandals in other States
^Privatization of workers comp in California results in workers comp costs increasing to above 166% of the national median.

BBC News - Ken Clarke privatises Birmingham Prison amid union fury
^In UK privatized prisons cost 5% more even though private prisons don't provide workers with adequate benefits or pay.
http://www.bls.gov/opub/focus/volume2_number12/cex_2_12.pdf
The Real Costs of Car Ownership Calculator
^Socializing life insurance alone would save America 250billion yearly
^Socializing car insurance/home/and all others minus health care would save 200 billion
^Socializing all insurance minus health care would save almost 500billion dollars yearly
Privatization During an Economic Downturn: Still Inefficient and Problematic | Progressive States Network
^Privatization of parking and parking meters resulted in an increase in costs by 240%

2009 New Jersey Code :: US Codes and Statutes :: US Law :: Justia
--^New Jerseys DMV privatization failed, socialization made it better Privatized DMV leads to poor service, under paid employees, a lack of anti-fraud policies, and long wait times/lines.

Privatization During an Economic Downturn: Still Inefficient and Problematic | Progressive States Network
^Privatization of parking and parking meters resulted in an increase in costs by 240%

2009 New Jersey Code :: US Codes and Statutes :: US Law :: Justia
--^New Jerseys DMV privatization failed, socialization made it better Privatized DMV leads to poor service, under paid employees, a lack of anti-fraud policies, and long wait times/lines.
Charity Navigator - America's Largest Charity Evaluator | Home
Disagreeing With Dignan: The Politics Of Poverty And Welfare | Alas, a Blog
http://www.bargaineering.com/articles/dont-donate-money-to-charity.html
^---Government welfare is around 3 times more efficient than private charity.
^Average charity has administration costs of 30% compared to 5% for government
^Americans spend around 300 billion a year on charity. If government were to become the only "charity" than Americas would save around 75 billion dollars a year.

Yes you are a clulees retard

 

[Political Junky]

So far nothing has trickled down from the Bush tax cuts.

 

[JRK]

So far nothing has trickled down from the Bush tax cuts.

GWB is not the president
What does his tax policy have to do with Obama?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

No dumbass money that you make from Capital gains investments has not been taxed.

Capital gains are taxed at the corporate level prior to being taxed at the individual shareholder level.

The fact that periods with high taxes saw more GDP growth, more employment, and less poverty then periods with low rates. The fact that the rich invested their money in the housing bubble; also the fact that higher taxes on the rich results in lower taxes on the poor and more services meaning a better economy for 80% of Americans

Higher taxes on the wealthy do not result in higher taxes on the poor. The government simply continues to spend more money when it receives it. In fact, for decades it's been spending money we don't have. Taxes on the poor are at one of the lowest rates they've been at right now, particularly with over 40% of Americans not paying any federal income tax and those that paid nothing actually received a combined total of $105 billion in refundable tax credits in 2010.

The fact that higher taxes on the very rich results in me paying less taxes or having more services.

So what your saying is you're selfish.

The fact that the govenrment already better manages money then the private sector

That is not a fact at all. It is your opinion and a poorly formed one. What private entity is $16 trillion in debt?

So plz come back when you've got a clue

You keep telling that to other people and telling them how stupid they are, but you're the one who continues to constantly fit your own description of others. You are very misinformed and you are certainly not a critical thinker. I thought "liberals" were tolerant people.