Businesses are stupid

[SwimExpert]

Being in business does not make someone smart. Being a profitable business does not necessarily make someone smart. The 2008 collapse is a great example. Alot of companies made really stupid moves and things went bad. Really bad.

That being said, what are you going to do? Some degree of regulation is a good thing. But it seems like most liberals nowadays want to propose sweeping forms of aggressive government control. OnePercenter, for example, has recently been proposing that government dictate very specific numbers and figures for how to operate. Which is just ridiculous. Business needs adequate room to maneuver and figure out what is the best way to deal with their own challenges.

What many people fail to understand is that there is no security other than that which a person can provide for him or her self. That is where the focus needs to lay. The best solutions will prioritize empowering individuals in their own right. Attempting to restrict someone else is an inferior way to offer you security and the opportunity for prosperity.

The best, most direct way we can accomplish this is to eliminate income taxes on the bottom 95% of earners. Money in the hands of consumers is money they can choose to save, choose to spend on providing for their own basic needs, and/or choose to devote to educational or training to improve their opportunities in life.

We can do this in a fiscally responsible way by also reducing spending on entitlements by 50% of current levels. Such a reduction would still allow substantial resources to provide a true social safety net, as opposed to the current system which is more of an empowerment of poverty system. And, in addition to all of this, it would result in a budgetary surplus that could be used to pay down the public debt.

I'm sure it makes too much sense for most people, though.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

That being said, what are you going to do? Some degree of regulation is a good thing. But it seems like most liberals nowadays want to propose sweeping forms of aggressive government control.

Well it might "seem" that way to you however it isn't true. Now what?

 

[occupied]

You need to differentiate between big business and small business, they may both blindly chase profit down blind alleys but they are not the same. It is increasingly apparent that big business has no concern for small business. Although their paid lobbyists say otherwise big business will throw every small business in America under the bus to achieve their political goals. Meanwhile legions of small businessmen put too much faith into "pro-business" republicans to protect their interests thinking that what's good for Citigroup is good for Joe's Garage.

 

[SwimExpert]

You need to differentiate between big business and small business, they may both blindly chase profit down blind alleys but they are not the same. It is increasingly apparent that big business has no concern for small business. Although their paid lobbyists say otherwise big business will throw every small business in America under the bus to achieve their political goals. Meanwhile legions of small businessmen put too much faith into "pro-business" republicans to protect their interests thinking that what's good for Citigroup is good for Joe's Garage.

I don't see where there is any difference between big business and small business in what I have said. Unless you're trying to say that small businesses should have a different set of regulations than big business. If so, you're just doubling down on my point. Too much government control will fail to produce anything good. It's better to just cut taxes and let people feed themselves.

 

[jwoodie]

Simplistic to an astonishing degree. Would you also eliminate payroll taxes, which would immediately bankrupt Social Security? Would you cut "entitlements" by 50% overnight? If you did, we would have millions of people living on the streets and clamoring for revolution. Fortunately, these draconian measures would be politically impossible.

That being said, we need to implement structural fiscal reforms in the next few years if we are to avoid permanent economic decline. One place to start would be to prohibit any automatic increase in per capita entitlement spending in any year that the federal budget is not balanced. This would also promote a more rational discussion of tax policies, since it would be in everyone's interest to achieve an optimum revenue/expenditure ratio.

Unfortunately, this would probably require a Constitutional Amendment in order to be effective. Given the difficulty of obtaining 2/3 majorities in both House of Congress, this may only be possible if 2/3 of the States call for a Constitutional Convention.

 

[SwimExpert]

Would you also eliminate payroll taxes, which would immediately bankrupt Social Security?

I said income taxes, not payroll taxes.

Would you cut "entitlements" by 50% overnight? If you did, we would have millions of people living on the streets and clamoring for revolution.

Why? By eliminating income taxes on the bottom 95% of earners people will have more money to spend. There won't be anywhere near the same need for the same entitlement spending.

Fortunately, these draconian measures would be politically impossible.

Eliminating taxes on the bottom 95% is draconian? Ridiculous bullshit.

That being said, we need to implement structural fiscal reforms in the next few years if we are to avoid permanent economic decline.

And yet you reject meaningful reforms that will put give the poorest people the chance to keep more of their own money. You want things to change, just as long as they stay the same.

One place to start would be to prohibit any automatic increase in per capita entitlement spending in any year that the federal budget is not balanced.

Entitlement spending will NEVER be balanced. When $100 is taxed away from the public, only $80-$90 goes back out in entitlement spending. At best. You have to pay for the overhead costs of administering the program. Entitlement programs are supposed to be a social safety net. What they have become is a cumbersome system of waste and, well, entitlement. Most people don't resort to these programs because they are down on their luck and need a helping hand to get back on track. For most people they are a way of life.

This would also promote a more rational discussion of tax policies, since it would be in everyone's interest to achieve an optimum revenue/expenditure ratio.

In other words, keep doing what we're doing and we'll talk about changing things. What a fantastic plan of action.

Unfortunately, this would probably require a Constitutional Amendment in order to be effective.

Are you kidding me? Why are you even talking? Everything you are saying is "We can't do anything, we can't do anything! Don't do anything, we just can't do it! It will be too hard! Just keep spending money we don't have, it's too hard to be fiscally responsible!" It's pathetic.

 

[jwoodie]

Would you also eliminate payroll taxes, which would immediately bankrupt Social Security?

I said income taxes, not payroll taxes.

Would you cut "entitlements" by 50% overnight? If you did, we would have millions of people living on the streets and clamoring for revolution.

Why? By eliminating income taxes on the bottom 95% of earners people will have more money to spend. There won't be anywhere near the same need for the same entitlement spending.

Fortunately, these draconian measures would be politically impossible.

Eliminating taxes on the bottom 95% is draconian? Ridiculous bullshit.

That being said, we need to implement structural fiscal reforms in the next few years if we are to avoid permanent economic decline.

And yet you reject meaningful reforms that will put give the poorest people the chance to keep more of their own money. You want things to change, just as long as they stay the same.

One place to start would be to prohibit any automatic increase in per capita entitlement spending in any year that the federal budget is not balanced.

Entitlement spending will NEVER be balanced. When $100 is taxed away from the public, only $80-$90 goes back out in entitlement spending. At best. You have to pay for the overhead costs of administering the program. Entitlement programs are supposed to be a social safety net. What they have become is a cumbersome system of waste and, well, entitlement. Most people don't resort to these programs because they are down on their luck and need a helping hand to get back on track. For most people they are a way of life.

This would also promote a more rational discussion of tax policies, since it would be in everyone's interest to achieve an optimum revenue/expenditure ratio.

In other words, keep doing what we're doing and we'll talk about changing things. What a fantastic plan of action.

Unfortunately, this would probably require a Constitutional Amendment in order to be effective.

Are you kidding me? Why are you even talking? Everything you are saying is "We can't do anything, we can't do anything! Don't do anything, we just can't do it! It will be too hard! Just keep spending money we don't have, it's too hard to be fiscally responsible!" It's pathetic.

Sorry, I thought you were putting forth a serious proposal. Keep on venting if it makes you feel better.

 

[SwimExpert]

Sorry, I thought you were putting forth a serious proposal. Keep on venting if it makes you feel better.

So far you've had nothing of substance to offer. All you've done is whine. You say this is a bad idea, but you can't provide even one specific alternative. I am proposing a plan that will reduce taxes on the poor so that they can have more disposable income, create a budgetary surplus so we can start paying off the public debt, and ensure the solvency of Social Security for decades while also paving the way for Social Security to become nearly obsolete by the time today's children are ready to retire, because people will be able to provide those benefits for themselves.

Nope, that's not a serious proposal at all. Your crying hissyfit....now that's a serious proposal.

 

[LeftofLeft]

You need to differentiate between big business and small business, they may both blindly chase profit down blind alleys but they are not the same. It is increasingly apparent that big business has no concern for small business. Although their paid lobbyists say otherwise big business will throw every small business in America under the bus to achieve their political goals. Meanwhile legions of small businessmen put too much faith into "pro-business" republicans to protect their interests thinking that what's good for Citigroup is good for Joe's Garage.

Regarding small business, you only site big business as having no concern for small business. Conveniently, you left out where and how Big Government, Big Union, and Big Media concern for small business. Where is it? The stark reality is that there is no back door corporate cronyism to be had with small business. Small Business has been left by the wayside. Small Business should not be demonized. Big Business knows they are going to get demonized but also know the demonization is simply a call for payouts and payoffs.

Democrats and Liberals have done nothing for the small business entrepreneur.

 

[jwoodie]

Sorry, I thought you were putting forth a serious proposal. Keep on venting if it makes you feel better.

So far you've had nothing of substance to offer. All you've done is whine. You say this is a bad idea, but you can't provide even one specific alternative. I am proposing a plan that will reduce taxes on the poor so that they can have more disposable income, create a budgetary surplus so we can start paying off the public debt, and ensure the solvency of Social Security for decades while also paving the way for Social Security to become nearly obsolete by the time today's children are ready to retire, because people will be able to provide those benefits for themselves.

Nope, that's not a serious proposal at all. Your crying hissyfit....now that's a serious proposal.

Did you miss this part of my post?

"One place to start would be to prohibit any automatic increase in per capita entitlement spending in any year that the federal budget is not balanced."

The purpose of this proposal would be to accomplish most of the things you want without massive economic and political disruption. Unlike your proposal, which would throw millions of low income people* out on the streets, this would be a self correcting measure that would use inflation to work for us instead of against us. I went on to explain why and how this could be accomplished by Constitutional Amendment.

*These people already pay NO income taxes, so your proposal would not benefit them at all. Instead, whatever "entitlement" income they now receive would suddenly be cut in half. Do you think that millions of new jobs would instantly appear to replace that lost income?

 

[The Rabbi]

Being in business does not make someone smart. Being a profitable business does not necessarily make someone smart. The 2008 collapse is a great example. Alot of companies made really stupid moves and things went bad. Really bad.

That being said, what are you going to do? Some degree of regulation is a good thing. But it seems like most liberals nowadays want to propose sweeping forms of aggressive government control. OnePercenter, for example, has recently been proposing that government dictate very specific numbers and figures for how to operate. Which is just ridiculous. Business needs adequate room to maneuver and figure out what is the best way to deal with their own challenges.

What many people fail to understand is that there is no security other than that which a person can provide for him or her self. That is where the focus needs to lay. The best solutions will prioritize empowering individuals in their own right. Attempting to restrict someone else is an inferior way to offer you security and the opportunity for prosperity.

The best, most direct way we can accomplish this is to eliminate income taxes on the bottom 95% of earners. Money in the hands of consumers is money they can choose to save, choose to spend on providing for their own basic needs, and/or choose to devote to educational or training to improve their opportunities in life.

We can do this in a fiscally responsible way by also reducing spending on entitlements by 50% of current levels. Such a reduction would still allow substantial resources to provide a true social safety net, as opposed to the current system which is more of an empowerment of poverty system. And, in addition to all of this, it would result in a budgetary surplus that could be used to pay down the public debt.

I'm sure it makes too much sense for most people, though.

You're a ignoramus.
The bottom 40% of wage earners not only pay no incomes taxes: they get more back than they put in--effectively a negative income tax.

 

[SwimExpert]

The bottom 40% of wage earners not only pay no incomes taxes: they get more back than they put in--effectively a negative income tax.

This is false. No matter how many times you say it, it will still be false. You are making statements about an arbitrarily determined group, and implying conclusions about the individuals.

The bottom 40% includes all earners making up to $36,500 a year. A single w/no dependents filer using the 1040EZ in tax year 2013 will have had taxable income of $26,500 and tax liability of $3,533.

There are many people who end up having a zero tax liability. However those people are found across the income spectrum. An individual's unique tax situation determines such things. Of course, if we would eliminate all the fancy bullshit and employ a simple system without various deductions and loopholes, there would no longer be this issue.

 

[Judicial review]

If you want to talk business and finance you need me involved. I'm the business and financial genius here on this board.

 

[The Rabbi]

The bottom 40% of wage earners not only pay no incomes taxes: they get more back than they put in--effectively a negative income tax.

This is false. No matter how many times you say it, it will still be false. You are making statements about an arbitrarily determined group, and implying conclusions about the individuals.

The bottom 40% includes all earners making up to $36,500 a year. A single w/no dependents filer using the 1040EZ in tax year 2013 will have had taxable income of $26,500 and tax liability of $3,533.

There are many people who end up having a zero tax liability. However those people are found across the income spectrum. An individual's unique tax situation determines such things. Of course, if we would eliminate all the fancy bullshit and employ a simple system without various deductions and loopholes, there would no longer be this issue.

I have posted the link over and over. Here it is again.
The rich do not pay the most taxes they pay ALL the taxes

 

[The Rabbi]

If you want to talk business and finance you need me involved. I'm the business and financial genius here on this board.

I thought you were the political genius?

 

[Judicial review]

If you want to talk business and finance you need me involved. I'm the business and financial genius here on this board.

I thought you were the political genius?

In my grand introduction to this board i said I was all 3. ;>)

 

[The Rabbi]

If you want to talk business and finance you need me involved. I'm the business and financial genius here on this board.

I thought you were the political genius?

In my grand introduction to this board i said I was all 3. ;>)

Which means in all likelihood you don't know a fig about any of them.

 

[Judicial review]

If you want to talk business and finance you need me involved. I'm the business and financial genius here on this board.

I thought you were the political genius?

In my grand introduction to this board i said I was all 3. ;>)

Which means in all likelihood you don't know a fig about any of them.

Actually I know a ton about all 3. People here have challenged me here over the months but failed every time. Both rwers and libs. I'm really so smart I shock my self with how much I'm correct. Knowing what i know is truly scary and boring as shit. I mean, who would have thought I'd be 100% correct about everything the last 6 years even since before Obama got elected? No one has been that fucking right on the planet! The business debates I get into are over with in 1 post whether it's a right winger or left leaning dumbshit.

You want me to lie? What the hell am I supposed to say?

 

[JoeMoma]

If you want to talk business and finance you need me involved. I'm the business and financial genius here on this board.

I thought you were the political genius?

In my grand introduction to this board i said I was all 3. ;>)

Which means in all likelihood you don't know a fig about any of them.

Actually I know a ton about all 3. People here have challenged me here over the months but failed every time. Both rwers and libs. I'm really so smart I shock my self with how much I'm correct. Knowing what i know is truly scary and boring as shit. I mean, who would have thought I'd be 100% correct about everything the last 6 years even since before Obama got elected? No one has been that fucking right on the planet! The business debates I get into are over with in 1 post whether it's a right winger or left leaning dumbshit.

You are truely amazing!

 

[Ravi]

The bottom 40% of wage earners not only pay no incomes taxes: they get more back than they put in--effectively a negative income tax.

This is false. No matter how many times you say it, it will still be false. You are making statements about an arbitrarily determined group, and implying conclusions about the individuals.

The bottom 40% includes all earners making up to $36,500 a year. A single w/no dependents filer using the 1040EZ in tax year 2013 will have had taxable income of $26,500 and tax liability of $3,533.

There are many people who end up having a zero tax liability. However those people are found across the income spectrum. An individual's unique tax situation determines such things. Of course, if we would eliminate all the fancy bullshit and employ a simple system without various deductions and loopholes, there would no longer be this issue.

I have posted the link over and over. Here it is again.
The rich do not pay the most taxes they pay ALL the taxes

You don't pay taxes?