Tax the rich, lose the rich

[daveman]

Feel free to refer to the statement I quoted and replied to while you look for a way to keep your sagging man-titties off of your keyboard.

You make a compelling case. I'm THIS close to registering Democrat!

Did you just hold up your fingers 4mm apart after checking for accurate length against your penis??

Oh, man, nothing says "I'm a witty, urbane intellectual!" quite like a dick joke.

 

[Shogun]

You make a compelling case. I'm THIS close to registering Democrat!

Did you just hold up your fingers 4mm apart after checking for accurate length against your penis??

Oh, man, nothing says "I'm a witty, urbane intellectual!" quite like a dick joke.

truth hurts almost as much as a full day wearing your man-bra, doesn't it?

 

[Bern80]

It's certainly not inherently wrong. I'm lucky enough that when (god forbid) my parents die, they'll leave me with a decent pile of money. And no, we don't need to completely even the playing field, that's not possible. But in the last 20 years, the financial policies of this country have been designed to widen the gap. Do you think that's the best way?

Then what we disagree on is the WHY of what is happening. I believe that the few corporate entities out there that are trying to screw people (which is generally not profitable in the long run) are largerly irrlevant. Why? Because they are still things an idividual can mitigate. So what if some lending institution decides to engage in predatory lending? Isn't there some ownous on the individual to not be an idiot. To not try to purchase something you can't afford.

THAT is what I think the problem is. When given a choice between hard and easy, and creating a business is by no means easy, most people choose easy. Most are content with good enough. Well good enough isnt going to make you rich. I believe it is because it is observable. I'm a 29 year old tech rep starting out with the company i work for. I obviously hope to work hard enough that I will move up with the company. But I work with 8 other people. 7 of which we will say are in their middle years. This job doesn't require and inordinant amount of brain power and the pay reflects that ($12/hr). It is observable that none of those 7 people are aspiring to do much more than this job for the rest of their working lives. And it certainly isn't that they are capable of more. They aren't bad people or anything it's just that apparently good enough is good enough for them. That's okay, but we also shouldn't be wondering why there are so few rich people.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yeah it would be nice if such a fictional world worked with reality but the reality, that most of the right continues to ignore, is the fact that the job creators have been allowed to have their capital but they haven't created jobs with it. Why is it that you continue to ignore this FACT?

Bush's tax cuts are still in effect and have been this whole time and yet where are the jobs?? Why should we give MORE or even extend the taxcuts to get them to create jobs if they haven't done so already?? They had the motivation to do so and chose not to and now the right is arguing that we should allow them to keep the motivation in the HOPES that they will do what they said they would do when they got the motivation the first time around.

We are in a recession.
We were told that our cost to employ is going up due to healthcare reform.
We are in a recession.
We are told that our taxes are going up due to the tax cut roll backs.
We are in a recession.

Example....real example...

I own a small business.
I made good money up until 2 years ago.
My house value went down so I can not count on capital from my house.
I have not laid off.
Business is slow (recession).
I take home less now than one of my employees as I did not lower her salary...I opted to take less home.
I was told that my cost to employ is going up due to healthcare.
I will NOT lower her salary or anyone elses in my empoly, so if business does not pick up I will take home even less than I am now making it real tight.
I am now going to have my taxes raised...giving me even LESS to take home.
Business is still slow.
Taking even less home may put me in a position to have to lay off so I can meet my bills.
If I dont meet my bills, I go bankrupt and ALL of my employees lose their jobs.

So call it what you want. Call me evil. Tell me I hate the working class.

Say whatever you want.

You tell me excactly what I should do?

If your business provides goods or services, you should call your Senators and Congressman and demand they extend unemployment insurance. The economy's fundamental problem is a "demand deficit." There is less economic demand for products and services than the ability we have to produce them. Every dollar of spending on unemployment benefits increases overall economic growth by $1.61. That's because people who get unemployment benefits need to spend the money, and the people who receive it from them spend it as well, and so on. Tax cuts for the wealthy return $0.34 for every dollar spent or not collected as revenue.

IF you run your business based on your taxes, then you are not a smart businessman. You will expand or contract based on the market, NOT on if your taxes go up 3.6%.

Yet another chucklehead who believes in the "multiplier effect." Newsflash: The multiplier of gov't spending is less than one. Unemployment has to be paid for by taxes, which put a drag on the economy and on businesses.
This has been demonstrated many times. If what you said were true, everyone ought to go on unemployment and we could watch GDP soar.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

am paying 29.99 for cablevision.
I am paying $100 for cable, internet and phone.
It is called "the triple play" or something like that.

My cable used to be $49.....my internet used to be $49...and my phone used to be $129.

SO I dont get it. You should speak to cablevision.

I don't need or want a land line - I only use my cell. And my building has free wi-fi. Why would I pay $30 MORE for shit I won't use? I'm tempted to get rid cable it all togther. TV sucks.

 

[drsmith1072]

I do not see it as you see it.
You see it as saving the rich.
I see it as allwoing the job creators to have the capital TO CREATE JOBS.
Once we start creating jobs, we have an increase in tax revenue. Once we have an increase in tax revenue, we start working on our debt.

Yeah it would be nice if such a fictional world worked with reality but the reality, that most of the right continues to ignore, is the fact that the job creators have been allowed to have their capital but they haven't created jobs with it. Why is it that you continue to ignore this FACT?

Bush's tax cuts are still in effect and have been this whole time and yet where are the jobs?? Why should we give MORE or even extend the taxcuts to get them to create jobs if they haven't done so already?? They had the motivation to do so and chose not to and now the right is arguing that we should allow them to keep the motivation in the HOPES that they will do what they said they would do when they got the motivation the first time around.

We are in a recession.
We were told that our cost to employ is going up due to healthcare reform.
We are in a recession.
We are told that our taxes are going up due to the tax cut roll backs.
We are in a recession.

Example....real example...

I own a small business.
I made good money up until 2 years ago.
My house value went down so I can not count on capital from my house.
I have not laid off.
Business is slow (recession).
I take home less now than one of my employees as I did not lower her salary...I opted to take less home.
I was told that my cost to employ is going up due to healthcare.
I will NOT lower her salary or anyone elses in my empoly, so if business does not pick up I will take home even less than I am now making it real tight.
I am now going to have my taxes raised...giving me even LESS to take home.
Business is still slow.
Taking even less home may put me in a position to have to lay off so I can meet my bills.
If I dont meet my bills, I go bankrupt and ALL of my employees lose their jobs.

So call it what you want. Call me evil. Tell me I hate the working class.

Say whatever you want.

You tell me excactly what I should do?

Nice present tense argument that still doesn't ecplain why that DIDN'T do it when they had the chance. Like republicans refuse to admit or even talk about why they DIDN'T make the taxcut permanent when they had the cahnce or why the right DIDN'T do anything about immigration when they had the chance.

Nice work of fiction but in the end that's all you have. After dealing with the likes of jester for a while on the msnbc boards and here who corrected his life story everytime someone pointed out how it didn't make sense I don't believe anything anyone says about their so-called reall life.

I never called you evil and i never said that you hate the working class. I just don't buy the lame excuses made in an attempt ot cover for the inaction of the job creators after they got what they asked for and then only wanted more while failing to follow through with their end.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

"Private Property" does NOT equal "Freedom", no matter how much the Heritage Foundation says so.

Yes, private property does indeed equal freedom.

I disagree. In fact, I think the opposite is true. Ever heard the saying "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose"?

"Freedom" means the ability to make your own choices. Marxism is closer to anarchy than anything else, with minimal government. I thought "Less government" = "Freedom".

It's one or the other.

What choices is the collective going to allow you to have?

I think you're missing my point here, which is probably mostly my fault.

Marxism doesn't work. It never will, except on a small scale. On this I'm sure we agree.

But this what Marxism is NOT:
It's not a totalitarian system. In fact, it's nearly ANARCHY. No one is telling you what to do. "The Collective" doesn't exist - it's just a bunch of people, all of them working towards common goals, and sharing food, land, etc. It will never work because of faults of human nature, but it's not a autocratic system.

 

[EriktheRed]

More Rich Americans Renounce U.S. Citizenship over Taxes - DailyFinance

Keep in mind that wealthy people represent the dynamic force in our economy, starting businesses, expanding existing businesses or investing in new or starting companies. That they want to take their marbles and leave is a bad sign for us.
All you "don't let the screen door hit you where the good Lord split you" liberal class warriors can just STFU now.

No.

Atlas isn't gonna shrug because Atlas wouldn't dare.

 

[Shogun]

It's certainly not inherently wrong. I'm lucky enough that when (god forbid) my parents die, they'll leave me with a decent pile of money. And no, we don't need to completely even the playing field, that's not possible. But in the last 20 years, the financial policies of this country have been designed to widen the gap. Do you think that's the best way?

Then what we disagree on is the WHY of what is happening. I believe that the few corporate entities out there that are trying to screw people (which is generally not profitable in the long run) are largerly irrlevant. Why? Because they are still things an idividual can mitigate. So what if some lending institution decides to engage in predatory lending? Isn't there some ownous on the individual to not be an idiot. To not try to purchase something you can't afford.

THAT is what I think the problem is. When given a choice between hard and easy, and creating a business is by no means easy, most people choose easy. Most are content with good enough. Well good enough isnt going to make you rich. I believe it is because it is observable. I'm a 29 year old tech rep starting out with the company i work for. I obviously hope to work hard enough that I will move up with the company. But I work with 8 other people. 7 of which we will say are in their middle years. This job doesn't require and inordinant amount of brain power and the pay reflects that ($12/hr). It is observable that none of those 7 people are aspiring to do much more than this job for the rest of their working lives. And it certainly isn't that they are capable of more. They aren't bad people or anything it's just that apparently good enough is good enough for them. That's okay, but we also shouldn't be wondering why there are so few rich people.

Onus, Bern, Onus.

but yea... Enron sure was easily "mitigated"..


mit·i·gate (mtgt)
v. mit·i·gat·ed, mit·i·gat·ing, mit·i·gates
v.tr.
To moderate (a quality or condition) in force or intensity; alleviate. See Synonyms at relieve.
v.intr.
To become milder.




seriously, dude.

 

[Shogun]

"Private Property" does NOT equal "Freedom", no matter how much the Heritage Foundation says so.

Yes, private property does indeed equal freedom.

I disagree. In fact, I think the opposite is true. Ever heard the saying "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose"?

"Freedom" means the ability to make your own choices. Marxism is closer to anarchy than anything else, with minimal government. I thought "Less government" = "Freedom".

It's one or the other.

What choices is the collective going to allow you to have?

I think you're missing my point here, which is probably mostly my fault.

Marxism doesn't work. It never will, except on a small scale. On this I'm sure we agree.

But this what Marxism is NOT:
It's not a totalitarian system. In fact, it's nearly ANARCHY. No one is telling you what to do. "The Collective" doesn't exist - it's just a bunch of people, all of them working towards common goals, and sharing food, land, etc. It will never work because of faults of human nature, but it's not a autocratic system.

I was with you until you started quoting Bobby McGee. I mean, Kris Kristopherson WAS one of the Highwaymen but...

 

[theDoctorisIn]

It's certainly not inherently wrong. I'm lucky enough that when (god forbid) my parents die, they'll leave me with a decent pile of money. And no, we don't need to completely even the playing field, that's not possible. But in the last 20 years, the financial policies of this country have been designed to widen the gap. Do you think that's the best way?

Then what we disagree on is the WHY of what is happening. I believe that the few corporate entities out there that are trying to screw people (which is generally not profitable in the long run) are largerly irrlevant. Why? Because they are still things an idividual can mitigate. So what if some lending institution decides to engage in predatory lending? Isn't there some ownous on the individual to not be an idiot. To not try to purchase something you can't afford.

THAT is what I think the problem is. When given a choice between hard and easy, and creating a business is by no means easy, most people choose easy. Most are content with good enough. Well good enough isnt going to make you rich. I believe it is because it is observable. I'm a 29 year old tech rep starting out with the company i work for. I obviously hope to work hard enough that I will move up with the company. But I work with 8 other people. 7 of which we will say are in their middle years. This job doesn't require and inordinant amount of brain power and the pay reflects that ($12/hr). It is observable that none of those 7 people are aspiring to do much more than this job for the rest of their working lives. And it certainly isn't that they are capable of more. They aren't bad people or anything it's just that apparently good enough is good enough for them. That's okay, but we also shouldn't be wondering why there are so few rich people.

I have a hard time blaming this gap on "lazy" people. But the point Ii was attempting to make was that the game is fixed. It has been for a long time. I don't blame corporations - I'm certain I'd do the same thing if I was in their place - but the working man doesn't have billions of dollars to lobby with. The deck is being stacked, and that's where the problems begin.

Do you know why it's illegal to grow hemp in the US? (Hint: it's not because of Marijuana).

 

[rdean]

Tax the rich.

Lose the rich.

**** the rich.

They can't get rich without us. All they can do is move American jobs to China. Then pay the Chinese so little, no one can afford to buy their products, that didn't work anymore anyway. **** 'em.

 

[drsmith1072]

So you mischaracterize what I wrote and then proceed to try to say that is false? Nice work if you can get it.
In fact the article makes two things clear: the number of people renouncing citizenship has doubled and will continue to increase. The number of people leaving to preserve their wealth is increasing.
Doubtless you will again misconstrue what I wrote, try to show it was wrong, and call me names.

What was mischaracterized HACK?? You make the claim and the fail completely to support it, not that I wonder why but it would be nice if you could provide some substance for a change.

Yeah the article makes it clear that it has TRIPLED from 08 to 09 (do you even read what you cut and paste??) but it doesn't show anything of substance to support that they are leaving due to taxes. In fact it shows that "Many of those leaving the U.S. behind have dual nationality and may not have lived in the country for years. Others have lived overseas for so long that America no longer feels like home."

As to your second claim yeah the OPINION that you linked to does make the CLAIM that the number of people leaving to preserve their wealth is increasing but it provided NOTHING of substance to support that OPINION.

BTW In this post I quoted the article and was talking about ITS content, so unless you wrote it then STFU moron. LOL However, even then my argument is spot on and the FACT is that the article that you linked to offers nothing to support it's conclusion that "the growing unease about the Obama administration's taxation policies among the wealthy" is the reason that these people are leaving.
Got any more BS spin?

Wow are you dumb. Who said everyone who leaves does so for tax reasons? Of course there are lots of reasons. But at least some of them are doing so for wealth preservation, and an increasing number so.
All of that is supported by the article. Too bad you're too dumb to understand that.

What are you spinning about now?? Your own article implies that the increase in those leaving is due to obama's tax policies when it offers NOTHING to support that claim and it's primary example of a guy who left did so in the 60s. SO thanks for trying to put up your strawman so you could attack me personally and avoid want I actually said but how about you stay on topic and actually address what i wrote for a change?

FACT is that I countered your dishonest spin and this strawman avoidance tactic is the best (laughable) defense that you have to offer. LOL

 

[boedicca]

Tax the rich.

Lose the rich.

**** the rich.

They can't get rich without us. All they can do is move American jobs to China. Then pay the Chinese so little, no one can afford to buy their products, that didn't work anymore anyway. **** 'em.

You are decades out of date in your knowledge of China and the global economy.

 

[Samson]

Tax the rich.

Lose the rich.

**** the rich.

They can't get rich without us. All they can do is move American jobs to China. Then pay the Chinese so little, no one can afford to buy their products, that didn't work anymore anyway. **** 'em.

You are decades out of date in your knowledge of China and the global economy.

You flatter rdean.

He is actually entire evolutionary stages out of date in his knowledge.

 

[Bfgrn]

We are in a recession.
We were told that our cost to employ is going up due to healthcare reform.
We are in a recession.
We are told that our taxes are going up due to the tax cut roll backs.
We are in a recession.

Example....real example...

I own a small business.
I made good money up until 2 years ago.
My house value went down so I can not count on capital from my house.
I have not laid off.
Business is slow (recession).
I take home less now than one of my employees as I did not lower her salary...I opted to take less home.
I was told that my cost to employ is going up due to healthcare.
I will NOT lower her salary or anyone elses in my empoly, so if business does not pick up I will take home even less than I am now making it real tight.
I am now going to have my taxes raised...giving me even LESS to take home.
Business is still slow.
Taking even less home may put me in a position to have to lay off so I can meet my bills.
If I dont meet my bills, I go bankrupt and ALL of my employees lose their jobs.

So call it what you want. Call me evil. Tell me I hate the working class.

Say whatever you want.

You tell me excactly what I should do?

If your business provides goods or services, you should call your Senators and Congressman and demand they extend unemployment insurance. The economy's fundamental problem is a "demand deficit." There is less economic demand for products and services than the ability we have to produce them. Every dollar of spending on unemployment benefits increases overall economic growth by $1.61. That's because people who get unemployment benefits need to spend the money, and the people who receive it from them spend it as well, and so on. Tax cuts for the wealthy return $0.34 for every dollar spent or not collected as revenue.

IF you run your business based on your taxes, then you are not a smart businessman. You will expand or contract based on the market, NOT on if your taxes go up 3.6%.

Yet another chucklehead who believes in the "multiplier effect." Newsflash: The multiplier of gov't spending is less than one. Unemployment has to be paid for by taxes, which put a drag on the economy and on businesses.
This has been demonstrated many times. If what you said were true, everyone ought to go on unemployment and we could watch GDP soar.

"Not all budgetary dollars are created equal," said Alan Blinder, professor and co-director of Princeton University's Center for Economic Policy Studies, in a conference Wednesday morning. "Some have a lot of bang for the buck, and some have very little. The GDP increase per dollar of budgetary cost is in the range of 1.6, 1.7 for things like food stamps and unemployment benefits, and in the range of .35 for extending the Bush tax cuts. We could get some substantial job creation by simply reprogramming the $75 billion that would be saved over the next two years by not extending the upper-bracket Bush tax cuts and spending it instead on unemployment benefits, food stamps, and the like."

Blinder's economic advice supports the tax policy of President Obama and the Democrats, who would like to maintain tax cuts for 95 percent of Americans, while letting the cuts for those with incomes above $250,000 expire. Letting the tax cuts lapse is projected to trim approximately $675 billion from the deficit over 10 years, according to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.

The GOP, by contrast, is aiming to extend the Bush tax cuts across the board, and has tried to block the billions in deficit spending to extend benefits to the long-term unemployed.

Blinder said that extending tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans would only exacerbate an ever-increasing income gap.

"One of the objections a lot of us raised back in 2001 when the Bush cuts were originally enacted was that they were...adding further post-tax income inequality to an economy that was already producing a lot of pre-tax inequality," he said. "I still feel that way. On the other hand, unemployment benefits and food stamps tend to go to people with much much lower incomes [who] need it a lot more, and you get substantially more GDP boost and job creation than if the same amount of money were spent extending tax cuts at the top."

After the U.S. has dug itself out of this recession, Blinder said, Congress should then make it a priority to start digging the country out of debt.

Alan Stuart Blinder (born October 14, 1945) is an American economist. He serves at Princeton University as the Gordon S. Rentschler Memorial Professor of Economics and Public Affairs in the Economics Department, and as co-director of Princeton’s Center for Economic Policy Studies, which he founded in 1990. Since 1978 he has been a Research Associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research. He is among the most influential economists in the world according to IDEAS/RePEc.

Tax Returns: A Comprehensive Assessment of the Bush Administration's Record on Cutting Taxes; Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

 

[daveman]

Did you just hold up your fingers 4mm apart after checking for accurate length against your penis??

Oh, man, nothing says "I'm a witty, urbane intellectual!" quite like a dick joke.

truth hurts almost as much as a full day wearing your man-bra, doesn't it?

What in Gaea's name ever convinced you that you're an intelligent person?

 

[rightwinger]

How can anyone support borrowing money to give tax cuts to the rich?

 

[daveman]

[And my building has free wi-fi.

No, it doesn't.

 

[daveman]

"Private Property" does NOT equal "Freedom", no matter how much the Heritage Foundation says so.

Yes, private property does indeed equal freedom.

I disagree. In fact, I think the opposite is true. Ever heard the saying "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose"?

I've heard it, but I try not to let '60s protest songs do my thinking for me.

"Freedom" means the ability to make your own choices. Marxism is closer to anarchy than anything else, with minimal government. I thought "Less government" = "Freedom".

It's one or the other.

What choices is the collective going to allow you to have?

I think you're missing my point here, which is probably mostly my fault.

Marxism doesn't work. It never will, except on a small scale. On this I'm sure we agree.

But this what Marxism is NOT:
It's not a totalitarian system. In fact, it's nearly ANARCHY. No one is telling you what to do. "The Collective" doesn't exist - it's just a bunch of people, all of them working towards common goals, and sharing food, land, etc. It will never work because of faults of human nature, but it's not a autocratic system.

It will never work not because of faults of human nature, but because it doesn't take human nature into account.