Tax the rich, lose the rich

[asterism]

Yeah, especially my capital gains are way down. Enough with the scare tactics.
So with the wife's income, we are still under $200,000

Your capital gains are way down? I though you said you were making great money in the stock market?

Capital Gains taxes happen when you sell, I'm not selling.

Ah.

So you aren't making money yet, you have paper wealth. Good to know.

Another liberal advocating that someone else pay for the government he wants.

 

[topspin]

Your capital gains are way down? I though you said you were making great money in the stock market?

Capital Gains taxes happen when you sell, I'm not selling.

Ah.

So you aren't making money yet, you have paper wealth. Good to know.

Another liberal advocating that someone else pay for the government he wants.

I'm making about 150,000 way less then Obama's targets. Have over a mill in Paper, yup stocks. Where do you think the rich have thier money. LOL

 

[Jarhead]

tax the rich get a trillion dollars, don't worry tea baggers your double wides won't be taxed.

Tax the job creators (the rich) if it will help with the deficit. But dont do it when you are asking the job creators (the rich) to create jobs.

If it is raining out and a man is fixing your leaking roof, would you consider it the right time to ask him to FIRST fix the broken leg on the chair in your living room?

you can sell taxing those over 250,000 is bad, just not to me

I dont see it as bad. I see it as bad timing.

There is a difference.

 

[topspin]

The median worth for those making over $250,000 is over $1.1MM. Granted I would have thought it was more. But they aren't leaving cause you raise taxes a couple percent.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Asterism has no idea what marxism is. That is clear from his posts. Asterism has no idea that almost all wealth is based on confidence. We have confidence the paper, the balance sheets, the statements, etc., reflect the wealth they say they do.

Asterism, go get a basic economics text book and start reading. You are embarrassing yourself here.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

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.

Despite evidence that the rich have gotten richer, this shameless monkey has the audacity to say that if the rich are taxed there will be no more rich, great to see people having more concern for people that have far more money than they will ever have as opposed to uplifting the poor.

Monkey, the rich have not created any jobs and have not boosted the economy, even with the Bush tax cuts so how could you say the rich represent the dynamic force in this economy. If they are "job creators" why is unemployment hovering in and near the double digits, again, with the Bush tax cuts still in effect? Come on monkey, show us where these wealthy people are driving out economy is a good way, it shouldn't be that hard, they were so good that the biggest ones needed what? Government bailouts, thats what they needed for fiscally mismanaging the economy and taking their spoils and fleeing. The mountain of evidence is against you. Now act like a good rightwing monkey and blame the Democrats for the failure of rich, or do you really practice that "personality responsibility" monkey speak that you preach?

 

[Jarhead]

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.

Despite evidence that the rich have gotten richer, this shameless monkey has the audacity to say that if the rich are taxed there will be no more rich, great to see people having more concern for people that have far more money than they will ever have as opposed to uplifting the poor.

Monkey, the rich have no created any jobs and boosted the economy, even with the Bush tax cuts so how could you say the rich represent the dynamic force in this economy. If they are "job creators" why is unemployment hovering in and near the double digits, again, with the Bush tax cuts still in effect? Come on monkey, show us where these wealthy people are driving out economy is a good way, it shouldn't be that hard, they were so good that the biggest ones needed what? Government bailouts, thats what they needed for fiscally mismanaging the economy and taking their spoils and fleeing. The mountain of evidence is against you. Now act like a good rightwing monkey and blame the Democrats for the failure of rich, or do you really practice that "personality responsibility" monkey speak that you preach?

OK. You want a debate? Lets debate. But lets even the field with knowledge.

I am not against the tax cuts expiring, I am against the timing.
Yes. The job creators looked at bottom line in the mid to late 2000's and di not concern them,selves as much as they could have with employment. DO you think that is becuase they did not care about meeting the demand of their customers? Does that make any sense?
Instead, they invested that "savings" in technology. For example, whereas a law firm used to need a dozen researcheers for any case to go through the thousands of books looking for precedents, all they needed to do in the 2000's was apply a boolean search to the search engine and come up with exactly what they were looking for....and as opposed to a dozen researching for 10 hours a day, they had 2 researching for 8 hours a day.

The thought that the job creators did not use that money to hire but instead used that money to pad their popckets is ludicrous. They spent what they needed to to meet the demand of the consumer......that is known as smart business.

Your concern should be what mine is....if we continue to find ways to save money with technology, there will be a serious loss in the need for human employees.;

 

[Bass v 2.0]

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.

Despite evidence that the rich have gotten richer, this shameless monkey has the audacity to say that if the rich are taxed there will be no more rich, great to see people having more concern for people that have far more money than they will ever have as opposed to uplifting the poor.

Monkey, the rich have no created any jobs and boosted the economy, even with the Bush tax cuts so how could you say the rich represent the dynamic force in this economy. If they are "job creators" why is unemployment hovering in and near the double digits, again, with the Bush tax cuts still in effect? Come on monkey, show us where these wealthy people are driving out economy is a good way, it shouldn't be that hard, they were so good that the biggest ones needed what? Government bailouts, thats what they needed for fiscally mismanaging the economy and taking their spoils and fleeing. The mountain of evidence is against you. Now act like a good rightwing monkey and blame the Democrats for the failure of rich, or do you really practice that "personality responsibility" monkey speak that you preach?

OK. You want a debate? Lets debate. But lets even the field with knowledge.

I am not against the tax cuts expiring, I am against the timing.
Yes. The job creators looked at bottom line in the mid to late 2000's and di not concern them,selves as much as they could have with employment. DO you think that is becuase they did not care about meeting the demand of their customers? Does that make any sense?
Instead, they invested that "savings" in technology. For example, whereas a law firm used to need a dozen researcheers for any case to go through the thousands of books looking for precedents, all they needed to do in the 2000's was apply a boolean search to the search engine and come up with exactly what they were looking for....and as opposed to a dozen researching for 10 hours a day, they had 2 researching for 8 hours a day.

The thought that the job creators did not use that money to hire but instead used that money to pad their popckets is ludicrous. They spent what they needed to to meet the demand of the consumer......that is known as smart business.

Your concern should be what mine is....if we continue to find ways to save money with technology, there will be a serious loss in the need for human employees.;

Ape, post some links, post some evidence.

 

[Jarhead]

Despite evidence that the rich have gotten richer, this shameless monkey has the audacity to say that if the rich are taxed there will be no more rich, great to see people having more concern for people that have far more money than they will ever have as opposed to uplifting the poor.

Monkey, the rich have no created any jobs and boosted the economy, even with the Bush tax cuts so how could you say the rich represent the dynamic force in this economy. If they are "job creators" why is unemployment hovering in and near the double digits, again, with the Bush tax cuts still in effect? Come on monkey, show us where these wealthy people are driving out economy is a good way, it shouldn't be that hard, they were so good that the biggest ones needed what? Government bailouts, thats what they needed for fiscally mismanaging the economy and taking their spoils and fleeing. The mountain of evidence is against you. Now act like a good rightwing monkey and blame the Democrats for the failure of rich, or do you really practice that "personality responsibility" monkey speak that you preach?

OK. You want a debate? Lets debate. But lets even the field with knowledge.

I am not against the tax cuts expiring, I am against the timing.
Yes. The job creators looked at bottom line in the mid to late 2000's and di not concern them,selves as much as they could have with employment. DO you think that is becuase they did not care about meeting the demand of their customers? Does that make any sense?
Instead, they invested that "savings" in technology. For example, whereas a law firm used to need a dozen researcheers for any case to go through the thousands of books looking for precedents, all they needed to do in the 2000's was apply a boolean search to the search engine and come up with exactly what they were looking for....and as opposed to a dozen researching for 10 hours a day, they had 2 researching for 8 hours a day.

The thought that the job creators did not use that money to hire but instead used that money to pad their popckets is ludicrous. They spent what they needed to to meet the demand of the consumer......that is known as smart business.

Your concern should be what mine is....if we continue to find ways to save money with technology, there will be a serious loss in the need for human employees.;

Ape, post some links, post some evidence.

Evidence of what?
Logic?

Do you really believe that businesses out there did NOTHINGT to meet the demand of the consumer?

Are you not at all aware of how well Google did in the 2000's?

Have you completely forgoteen the warning of years ago of how automation" will decrease the need for human labor?

Does it not make sense that soemthing as time consumeing as research used to be is no longer deemed nearly as time consuming?

Are you not aware that employee use is based on time and time is saved by technology?

Links?

What about basic logic?

ANd I ask ONE MORE TIME....

Do you truly believe that companies in the 2000's did not do what they needed to do to meet the demand of the consumers?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Opinion is great. Facts, stats, analysis, authority statements, so forth and so on, make opinions into informed opinions. I have not seen you do that, Jarhead.

 

[Jarhead]

Opinion is great. Facts, stats, analysis, authority statements, so forth and so on, make opinions into informed opinions. I have not seen you do that, Jarhead.

I debate. I do not regurgiate what bloggers calim to be valid stats that are actually stats that are skewed to meet the argiment of the debater.

I apply logic to my thinking and have learned long ago that simply looking at pooll numbers and stats does not offer valid information.

For example...I debated someone who presented "stats" showing job gains per president. What was not mentioned in that "chart" was what the unemployemnt rate was when the presidents came into office nor did it mention population growth....which, of course, would skew the numbers.

I recall someone also showing a chart of how 95% of blacks voted for Obama and 95% of blacks voted for Clinton so to say that Obama got such a large number of votes becuase he was black was a ludicrous statement.

Howerver, what was NOT shown in the chart was how MANY balcks voted for clinton and how many voted for Obama...which is actually the most impoortant number....becuase if the fact that he was a black candidate dramatically increased the number that opted to vote, then the premise of him being black WAS a factor...so his "stats" meant nothing.

I like to debate based on my expoerience and apply logic. Not some skewed stats that only tell half the story.

And by the way...as others will attest to...I have more than once backed down and admitted defeat based on the logic of my opponent.

 

[daveman]

Asterism has no idea what marxism is. That is clear from his posts. Asterism has no idea that almost all wealth is based on confidence. We have confidence the paper, the balance sheets, the statements, etc., reflect the wealth they say they do.

Asterism, go get a basic economics text book and start reading. You are embarrassing yourself here.

Boy, how many businesses have you started? How many people do you employ?

You are vastly outclassed discussing econ with asterism. I know, I know, you were your Econ 101 prof's favorite. But he taught you horseshit. You can tell because he's a teacher, not a businessman.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Opinion is great. Facts, stats, analysis, authority statements, so forth and so on, make opinions into informed opinions. I have not seen you do that, Jarhead.

I debate. I do not regurgiate what bloggers calim to be valid stats that are actually stats that are skewed to meet the argiment of the debater. <snip> ,.

In other words, you want to debate skewed philosophy. OK, go ahead, but that means nothing.

 

[asterism]

Capital Gains taxes happen when you sell, I'm not selling.

Ah.

So you aren't making money yet, you have paper wealth. Good to know.

Another liberal advocating that someone else pay for the government he wants.

I'm making about 150,000 way less then Obama's targets. Have over a mill in Paper, yup stocks. Where do you think the rich have thier money. LOL

It's not exclusively stocks, that's for sure.

But it's interesting to see a millionaire advocate someone else pay his fair share.

 

[Jarhead]

Opinion is great. Facts, stats, analysis, authority statements, so forth and so on, make opinions into informed opinions. I have not seen you do that, Jarhead.

I debate. I do not regurgiate what bloggers calim to be valid stats that are actually stats that are skewed to meet the argiment of the debater. <snip> ,.

In other words, you want to debate skewed philosophy. OK, go ahead, but that means nothing.

You opted to read it that way which speaks volumes of how you see your own "logic".
I never used the term "skewed philosophy".....but I guess you derive your own logic from skewed philosophy. That explains alot about your posts.

No. I said I apply logic and I ask anyone I debate to refute my logic. If they can, I admit defeat and rethink my stance on the subject.

Happens to be the best way to debate.....you should try it.

 

[asterism]

Asterism has no idea what marxism is. That is clear from his posts. Asterism has no idea that almost all wealth is based on confidence. We have confidence the paper, the balance sheets, the statements, etc., reflect the wealth they say they do.

Asterism, go get a basic economics text book and start reading. You are embarrassing yourself here.

Can't refute the claim so you refute the source.

Typical.

Do you suggest I "start reading" macro or micro?

 

[Jarhead]

Asterism has no idea what marxism is. That is clear from his posts. Asterism has no idea that almost all wealth is based on confidence. We have confidence the paper, the balance sheets, the statements, etc., reflect the wealth they say they do.

Asterism, go get a basic economics text book and start reading. You are embarrassing yourself here.

Can't refute the claim so you refute the source.

Typical.

Do you suggest I "start reading" macro or micro?

I have found the best way to learn how to apply Micro is understanding the theroies that are learned in Macro.

But that is me.

 

[Tom Clancy]

Its really funny to see the righties worship at the alter of the unber wealthy

Just like you worthy Obama, Kerry and all those Uber Rich Liberals?

 

[asterism]

Asterism has no idea what marxism is. That is clear from his posts. Asterism has no idea that almost all wealth is based on confidence. We have confidence the paper, the balance sheets, the statements, etc., reflect the wealth they say they do.

Asterism, go get a basic economics text book and start reading. You are embarrassing yourself here.

Can't refute the claim so you refute the source.

Typical.

Do you suggest I "start reading" macro or micro?

I have found the best way to learn how to apply Micro is understanding the theroies that are learned in Macro.

But that is me.

I agree. Concepts such as the means of production, the role of government in markets, the purpose and proper use of regulation, opportunity based factors versus outcome based factors, etc...

But for many people that takes Math and they say "Math is hard."

 

[Jarhead]

Can't refute the claim so you refute the source.

Typical.

Do you suggest I "start reading" macro or micro?

I have found the best way to learn how to apply Micro is understanding the theroies that are learned in Macro.

But that is me.

I agree. Concepts such as the means of production, the role of government in markets, the purpose and proper use of regulation, opportunity based factors versus outcome based factors, etc...

But for many people that takes Math and they say "Math is hard."

My older one struggled early on in math. I recalled something my Calculus professor at Syracuse once said to me..."Math is nothing more than loigic. If you reach back and look at a formula from a logical standpoint, you will understand the formula itself. Do not try to memorize it. Understand it"

I had memorized the theroy of limits (every epsilon greater than zero has a delta greater than zero such that the absolute value of f(x)....etc)....but di not understand the logic....so I had him explian to me the meaning and the poractical use...and I never turned back...

I explained that to my son and by the 12th grade he recieved a 4/4 on his AP calculus exam.