We're In a Recovery?

[pinqy]

Haha you handed me my ass? Because you don't know the definitions of employed and unemployed?

No. Because I know the definition of Civilian Labor Force and you dont. Even after I posted it. Nor could you identify the differences in our definitions. And still insist there is no difference.

You haven't pointed out any differences! Employed plus unemployed age 16+ excluding military and those in prison or other institutions. That's what I said and what you said.

Wrong. I pointed out the difference. You are too fucking stupid to get it.

You pointed out that I wrote "working or actively looking for work." How do you think that's any different from employed plus unemployed? It's not.

You're too stupid to comprehend the differences. Sorry.

BLS Glossary

Labor force (Current Population Survey)
The labor force includes all persons classified as employed or unemployed in accordance with the definitions contained in this glossary.

Employed persons (Current Population Survey)
Persons 16 years and over in the civilian noninstitutional population who, during the reference week, (a) did any work at all (at least 1 hour) as paid employees; worked in their own business, profession, or on their own farm, or worked 15 hours or more as unpaid workers in an enterprise operated by a member of the family; and (b) all those who were not working but who had jobs or businesses from which they were temporarily absent because of vacation, illness, bad weather, childcare problems, maternity or paternity leave, labor-management dispute, job training, or other family or personal reasons, whether or not they were paid for the time off or were seeking other jobs. Each employed person is counted only once, even if he or she holds more than one job. Excluded are persons whose only activity consisted of work around their own house (painting, repairing, or own home housework) or volunteer work for religious, charitable, and other organizations.

Unemployed persons (Current Population Survey)
Persons aged 16 years and older who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons who were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off need not have been looking for work to be classified as unemployed.

In general terms: working or actively looking for work.

 

[The Rabbi]

No. Because I know the definition of Civilian Labor Force and you dont. Even after I posted it. Nor could you identify the differences in our definitions. And still insist there is no difference.

You haven't pointed out any differences! Employed plus unemployed age 16+ excluding military and those in prison or other institutions. That's what I said and what you said.

Wrong. I pointed out the difference. You are too fucking stupid to get it.

You pointed out that I wrote "working or actively looking for work." How do you think that's any different from employed plus unemployed? It's not.

You're too stupid to comprehend the differences. Sorry.

BLS Glossary

Labor force (Current Population Survey)
The labor force includes all persons classified as employed or unemployed in accordance with the definitions contained in this glossary.

Employed persons (Current Population Survey)
Persons 16 years and over in the civilian noninstitutional population who, during the reference week, (a) did any work at all (at least 1 hour) as paid employees; worked in their own business, profession, or on their own farm, or worked 15 hours or more as unpaid workers in an enterprise operated by a member of the family; and (b) all those who were not working but who had jobs or businesses from which they were temporarily absent because of vacation, illness, bad weather, childcare problems, maternity or paternity leave, labor-management dispute, job training, or other family or personal reasons, whether or not they were paid for the time off or were seeking other jobs. Each employed person is counted only once, even if he or she holds more than one job. Excluded are persons whose only activity consisted of work around their own house (painting, repairing, or own home housework) or volunteer work for religious, charitable, and other organizations.

Unemployed persons (Current Population Survey)
Persons aged 16 years and older who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons who were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off need not have been looking for work to be classified as unemployed.

In general terms: working or actively looking for work.

Dunce. Total dunce. And a total failure at this "debate" thing. QUit already. You've already beclowned yourself. It's over.

 

[pinqy]

Haha you handed me my ass? Because you don't know the definitions of employed and unemployed?

No. Because I know the definition of Civilian Labor Force and you dont. Even after I posted it. Nor could you identify the differences in our definitions. And still insist there is no difference.

You haven't pointed out any differences! Employed plus unemployed age 16+ excluding military and those in prison or other institutions. That's what I said and what you said.

Wrong. I pointed out the difference. You are too fucking stupid to get it.

You pointed out that I wrote "working or actively looking for work." How do you think that's any different from employed plus unemployed? It's not.

You're too stupid to comprehend the differences. Sorry.

You haven't pointed out any differences! Employed plus unemployed age 16+ excluding military and those in prison or other institutions. That's what I said and what you said.

Wrong. I pointed out the difference. You are too fucking stupid to get it.

You pointed out that I wrote "working or actively looking for work." How do you think that's any different from employed plus unemployed? It's not.

You're too stupid to comprehend the differences. Sorry.

BLS Glossary

Labor force (Current Population Survey)
The labor force includes all persons classified as employed or unemployed in accordance with the definitions contained in this glossary.

Employed persons (Current Population Survey)
Persons 16 years and over in the civilian noninstitutional population who, during the reference week, (a) did any work at all (at least 1 hour) as paid employees; worked in their own business, profession, or on their own farm, or worked 15 hours or more as unpaid workers in an enterprise operated by a member of the family; and (b) all those who were not working but who had jobs or businesses from which they were temporarily absent because of vacation, illness, bad weather, childcare problems, maternity or paternity leave, labor-management dispute, job training, or other family or personal reasons, whether or not they were paid for the time off or were seeking other jobs. Each employed person is counted only once, even if he or she holds more than one job. Excluded are persons whose only activity consisted of work around their own house (painting, repairing, or own home housework) or volunteer work for religious, charitable, and other organizations.

Unemployed persons (Current Population Survey)
Persons aged 16 years and older who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons who were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off need not have been looking for work to be classified as unemployed.

In general terms: working or actively looking for work.

Dunce. Total dunce. And a total failure at this "debate" thing. QUit already. You've already beclowned yourself. It's over.

and what direction is the labor force level going again? While amusing, your posts are devoid of content. You're still trying to avoid admitting you posted a chart of the labor force rate, not level.

 

[The Rabbi]

No. Because I know the definition of Civilian Labor Force and you dont. Even after I posted it. Nor could you identify the differences in our definitions. And still insist there is no difference.

You haven't pointed out any differences! Employed plus unemployed age 16+ excluding military and those in prison or other institutions. That's what I said and what you said.

Wrong. I pointed out the difference. You are too fucking stupid to get it.

You pointed out that I wrote "working or actively looking for work." How do you think that's any different from employed plus unemployed? It's not.

You're too stupid to comprehend the differences. Sorry.

Wrong. I pointed out the difference. You are too fucking stupid to get it.

You pointed out that I wrote "working or actively looking for work." How do you think that's any different from employed plus unemployed? It's not.

You're too stupid to comprehend the differences. Sorry.

BLS Glossary

Labor force (Current Population Survey)
The labor force includes all persons classified as employed or unemployed in accordance with the definitions contained in this glossary.

Employed persons (Current Population Survey)
Persons 16 years and over in the civilian noninstitutional population who, during the reference week, (a) did any work at all (at least 1 hour) as paid employees; worked in their own business, profession, or on their own farm, or worked 15 hours or more as unpaid workers in an enterprise operated by a member of the family; and (b) all those who were not working but who had jobs or businesses from which they were temporarily absent because of vacation, illness, bad weather, childcare problems, maternity or paternity leave, labor-management dispute, job training, or other family or personal reasons, whether or not they were paid for the time off or were seeking other jobs. Each employed person is counted only once, even if he or she holds more than one job. Excluded are persons whose only activity consisted of work around their own house (painting, repairing, or own home housework) or volunteer work for religious, charitable, and other organizations.

Unemployed persons (Current Population Survey)
Persons aged 16 years and older who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons who were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off need not have been looking for work to be classified as unemployed.

In general terms: working or actively looking for work.

Dunce. Total dunce. And a total failure at this "debate" thing. QUit already. You've already beclowned yourself. It's over.

and what direction is the labor force level going again? While amusing, your posts are devoid of content. You're still trying to avoid admitting you posted a chart of the labor force rate, not level.

Labor force participation is going down, even as a supposed recovery is on. This never happens btw. Instead as people see jobs are more plentiful they are drawn back into the workforce, at first becoming unemployed and then employed.
It is a mark of Obama's total failure in economic policy that people arent seeing job opportunities.

 

[auditor0007]

OP, that's a very scary article and I don't doubt it based on what I have seen. As a country we need lots of people to take foolish entrepreneurial risks in order to spur our innovation along. But in a secular stagnation it's hard to prompt those entrepreneurs forward.

hard??? cut the corporate tax to $0 and the cap gains tax to $0 and you have $billion and billions more for those inclined to be innovative!! Gee the liberal got another one wrong. What a surprise. Ask yourself, do you want to be a liberal all your life?

Oh Ed, I love it when you pretend to understand entrepreneurs. Let's roll play, I have a great idea for a new business, I go lenders but they all want a personal guarantee and the equity in my home to lend me the money to take that risk. And I need to quit my job to take that risk. Plus, I'm sitting in secular stagnation and worried about losing my house, sending my kids to college and retiring. But you (Mr. Never an Entrepreneur) think that a tax rate on earnings is going to make a difference. I likely won't pay any taxes for the first three years and have a 50/50 shot of bankruptcy - but you think I should be worried about taxes.

Ed, can you show me one single entrepreneur who ever made the leap or not based on tax rates?

DEAR, YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND ENTREPRENEURSHIP. And you never will until you are one.

Bingo! The other misconception is that the wealthy are the ones starting new businesses. That is actually quite rare. Most new businesses are started by average everyday people who think they have a great idea or think they can provide the same product or service at a better price, and sometimes it's just by pure luck that they stumble upon something that takes off. Just ask Mark Zuckerberg.

And they get the money, how?
But entrpreneurship is not just starting businesses from scratch. It is about buying existing busineses to grow as well. And yes tax rates play a part in those decisions.

I don't know of any wealthy people who decided to stop trying to make more money because they thought the tax rates were too high. You do realize if that were the case, then we would have been sunk back in the 50's when the top rate was 90%. Of course, you also don't have a clue that nobody actually pays high tax rates, because there are so many ways around paying them. The fact is that most of the wealthy pay less than average middle class Americans, but you buffoons keep going back to the well crying that they pay too much. Regardless of the top rate, the wealthy have never paid anywhere close to the top rate at any time this past century. The sad thing is that you should know this.

 

[Dale Smith]

No. Because I know the definition of Civilian Labor Force and you dont. Even after I posted it. Nor could you identify the differences in our definitions. And still insist there is no difference.

You haven't pointed out any differences! Employed plus unemployed age 16+ excluding military and those in prison or other institutions. That's what I said and what you said.

Wrong. I pointed out the difference. You are too fucking stupid to get it.

You pointed out that I wrote "working or actively looking for work." How do you think that's any different from employed plus unemployed? It's not.

You're too stupid to comprehend the differences. Sorry.

Not meaning to get involved in your little lame flame war, but if you are claiming that unemployment and under employment isn't as bad as the statistics say? Allow me to give you a clearer picture of what the average "Johnny Lunchpail" is facing these days. 93 million work legible Americans are out of a job...101 million people are on some type of "gubermint" subsidy while we have a totally unsecured border and muslim refugees are being flown in overtly and covertly and dropped off in cities and towns that have to scramble to provide shelter and stipends for these illegals. Wages are totally stagnant as the Federal Reserve note that is backed by nothing is debased by the quantative easing of Wall Street by the foreign owned Federal Reserve banksters that create fake money by punching numbers on a computer screen....do you really think this system can last? Barrypuppet is intent on allowing poorly educated, poorly skilled illegals into this country at the detriment of the lower class just struggling to eek out an existence in this shitty country while liberal douchebags like you welcome the unwashed masses in on someone else's dime.......because we all know that the liberal's charity ends at the federal withholding rate. The global elites have not had a better friend than today's clueless Fabian socialists trying to pass themselves off as "progressives". You and your ilk are nothing but useful idiots. You are the epitome of the "yapping dog"....you bark loudly but you have no bite to fear.

Wrong. I pointed out the difference. You are too fucking stupid to get it.

You pointed out that I wrote "working or actively looking for work." How do you think that's any different from employed plus unemployed? It's not.

You're too stupid to comprehend the differences. Sorry.

BLS Glossary

Labor force (Current Population Survey)
The labor force includes all persons classified as employed or unemployed in accordance with the definitions contained in this glossary.

Employed persons (Current Population Survey)
Persons 16 years and over in the civilian noninstitutional population who, during the reference week, (a) did any work at all (at least 1 hour) as paid employees; worked in their own business, profession, or on their own farm, or worked 15 hours or more as unpaid workers in an enterprise operated by a member of the family; and (b) all those who were not working but who had jobs or businesses from which they were temporarily absent because of vacation, illness, bad weather, childcare problems, maternity or paternity leave, labor-management dispute, job training, or other family or personal reasons, whether or not they were paid for the time off or were seeking other jobs. Each employed person is counted only once, even if he or she holds more than one job. Excluded are persons whose only activity consisted of work around their own house (painting, repairing, or own home housework) or volunteer work for religious, charitable, and other organizations.

Unemployed persons (Current Population Survey)
Persons aged 16 years and older who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons who were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off need not have been looking for work to be classified as unemployed.

In general terms: working or actively looking for work.

Dunce. Total dunce. And a total failure at this "debate" thing. QUit already. You've already beclowned yourself. It's over.

and what direction is the labor force level going again? While amusing, your posts are devoid of content. You're still trying to avoid admitting you posted a chart of the labor force rate, not level.

 

[Dale Smith]

OP, that's a very scary article and I don't doubt it based on what I have seen. As a country we need lots of people to take foolish entrepreneurial risks in order to spur our innovation along. But in a secular stagnation it's hard to prompt those entrepreneurs forward.

hard??? cut the corporate tax to $0 and the cap gains tax to $0 and you have $billion and billions more for those inclined to be innovative!! Gee the liberal got another one wrong. What a surprise. Ask yourself, do you want to be a liberal all your life?

Oh Ed, I love it when you pretend to understand entrepreneurs. Let's roll play, I have a great idea for a new business, I go lenders but they all want a personal guarantee and the equity in my home to lend me the money to take that risk. And I need to quit my job to take that risk. Plus, I'm sitting in secular stagnation and worried about losing my house, sending my kids to college and retiring. But you (Mr. Never an Entrepreneur) think that a tax rate on earnings is going to make a difference. I likely won't pay any taxes for the first three years and have a 50/50 shot of bankruptcy - but you think I should be worried about taxes.

Ed, can you show me one single entrepreneur who ever made the leap or not based on tax rates?

DEAR, YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND ENTREPRENEURSHIP. And you never will until you are one.

Bingo! The other misconception is that the wealthy are the ones starting new businesses. That is actually quite rare. Most new businesses are started by average everyday people who think they have a great idea or think they can provide the same product or service at a better price, and sometimes it's just by pure luck that they stumble upon something that takes off. Just ask Mark Zuckerberg.

And they get the money, how?
But entrpreneurship is not just starting businesses from scratch. It is about buying existing busineses to grow as well. And yes tax rates play a part in those decisions.

I don't know of any wealthy people who decided to stop trying to make more money because they thought the tax rates were too high. You do realize if that were the case, then we would have been sunk back in the 50's when the top rate was 90%. Of course, you also don't have a clue that nobody actually pays high tax rates, because there are so many ways around paying them. The fact is that most of the wealthy pay less than average middle class Americans, but you buffoons keep going back to the well crying that they pay too much. Regardless of the top rate, the wealthy have never paid anywhere close to the top rate at any time this past century. The sad thing is that you should know this.

STFU...you don't even have a clue on how the federal income tax works or where it goes......here's a hint....it doesn't go towards paying for social programs or making your life better...bet me and lose on this one, little fella.....

 

[leftwinger]

OP, that's a very scary article and I don't doubt it based on what I have seen. As a country we need lots of people to take foolish entrepreneurial risks in order to spur our innovation along. But in a secular stagnation it's hard to prompt those entrepreneurs forward.

hard??? cut the corporate tax to $0 and the cap gains tax to $0 and you have $billion and billions more for those inclined to be innovative!! Gee the liberal got another one wrong. What a surprise. Ask yourself, do you want to be a liberal all your life?

Oh Ed, I love it when you pretend to understand entrepreneurs. Let's roll play, I have a great idea for a new business, I go lenders but they all want a personal guarantee and the equity in my home to lend me the money to take that risk. And I need to quit my job to take that risk. Plus, I'm sitting in secular stagnation and worried about losing my house, sending my kids to college and retiring. But you (Mr. Never an Entrepreneur) think that a tax rate on earnings is going to make a difference. I likely won't pay any taxes for the first three years and have a 50/50 shot of bankruptcy - but you think I should be worried about taxes.

Ed, can you show me one single entrepreneur who ever made the leap or not based on tax rates?

DEAR, YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND ENTREPRENEURSHIP. And you never will until you are one.

Bingo! The other misconception is that the wealthy are the ones starting new businesses. That is actually quite rare. Most new businesses are started by average everyday people who think they have a great idea or think they can provide the same product or service at a better price, and sometimes it's just by pure luck that they stumble upon something that takes off. Just ask Mark Zuckerberg.

And they get the money, how?
But entrpreneurship is not just starting businesses from scratch. It is about buying existing busineses to grow as well. And yes tax rates play a part in those decisions.

I don't know of any wealthy people who decided to stop trying to make more money because they thought the tax rates were too high. You do realize if that were the case, then we would have been sunk back in the 50's when the top rate was 90%. Of course, you also don't have a clue that nobody actually pays high tax rates, because there are so many ways around paying them. The fact is that most of the wealthy pay less than average middle class Americans, but you buffoons keep going back to the well crying that they pay too much. Regardless of the top rate, the wealthy have never paid anywhere close to the top rate at any time this past century. The sad thing is that you should know this.

I know more about this than I should know. Agreed: lower the rate, remove loopholes. Not sure about mortgage deduction for primary residence? ~40% is way too high FED rate.

I have seen charts that clearly show NO MATTER what the tax rate is (91% 75% 28%) the FED has been unable to collect more than 20% * GDP since forever. Make tax rate 10% or 20% one page Rand Paul style. Get on with it.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Bingo! The other misconception is that the wealthy are the ones starting new businesses.

dear very stupid and liberal, venture capitalists who fund most big new businesses are rich, and folks like Gates Jobs Zuckersburg Brin Musk were rich very early on but still always needed more $billions to expand their businesses. Taxing away billions from them for liberal govt to waste on crippling welfare is a direct attack on economic growth, jobs, and those who receive the welfare.

Do you have the IQ to understand?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

STFU...you don't even have a clue on how the federal income tax works or where it goes......here's a hint....it doesn't go towards paying for social programs or making your life better...bet me and lose on this one, little fella.....

dear stupid stupid liberal, why not tell us how social programs and making lives better get paid for if not in part from the income tax!!!.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

hard??? cut the corporate tax to $0 and the cap gains tax to $0 and you have $billion and billions more for those inclined to be innovative!! Gee the liberal got another one wrong. What a surprise. Ask yourself, do you want to be a liberal all your life?

Oh Ed, I love it when you pretend to understand entrepreneurs. Let's roll play, I have a great idea for a new business, I go lenders but they all want a personal guarantee and the equity in my home to lend me the money to take that risk. And I need to quit my job to take that risk. Plus, I'm sitting in secular stagnation and worried about losing my house, sending my kids to college and retiring. But you (Mr. Never an Entrepreneur) think that a tax rate on earnings is going to make a difference. I likely won't pay any taxes for the first three years and have a 50/50 shot of bankruptcy - but you think I should be worried about taxes.

Ed, can you show me one single entrepreneur who ever made the leap or not based on tax rates?

DEAR, YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND ENTREPRENEURSHIP. And you never will until you are one.

Bingo! The other misconception is that the wealthy are the ones starting new businesses. That is actually quite rare. Most new businesses are started by average everyday people who think they have a great idea or think they can provide the same product or service at a better price, and sometimes it's just by pure luck that they stumble upon something that takes off. Just ask Mark Zuckerberg.

And they get the money, how?
But entrpreneurship is not just starting businesses from scratch. It is about buying existing busineses to grow as well. And yes tax rates play a part in those decisions.

I don't know of any wealthy people who decided to stop trying to make more money because they thought the tax rates were too high. You do realize if that were the case, then we would have been sunk back in the 50's when the top rate was 90%. Of course, you also don't have a clue that nobody actually pays high tax rates, because there are so many ways around paying them. The fact is that most of the wealthy pay less than average middle class Americans, but you buffoons keep going back to the well crying that they pay too much. Regardless of the top rate, the wealthy have never paid anywhere close to the top rate at any time this past century. The sad thing is that you should know this.

I know more about this than I should know. Agreed: lower the rate, remove loopholes. Not sure about mortgage deduction for primary residence? ~40% is way too high FED rate.

I have seen charts that clearly show NO MATTER what the tax rate is (91% 75% 28%) the FED has been unable to collect more than 20% * GDP since forever. Make tax rate 10% or 20% one page Rand Paul style. Get on with it.

this is true, in fact when the rate was 91% the liberals collected less a % of GDP than than they today with a top 38% rate.

 

[The Rabbi]

OP, that's a very scary article and I don't doubt it based on what I have seen. As a country we need lots of people to take foolish entrepreneurial risks in order to spur our innovation along. But in a secular stagnation it's hard to prompt those entrepreneurs forward.

hard??? cut the corporate tax to $0 and the cap gains tax to $0 and you have $billion and billions more for those inclined to be innovative!! Gee the liberal got another one wrong. What a surprise. Ask yourself, do you want to be a liberal all your life?

Oh Ed, I love it when you pretend to understand entrepreneurs. Let's roll play, I have a great idea for a new business, I go lenders but they all want a personal guarantee and the equity in my home to lend me the money to take that risk. And I need to quit my job to take that risk. Plus, I'm sitting in secular stagnation and worried about losing my house, sending my kids to college and retiring. But you (Mr. Never an Entrepreneur) think that a tax rate on earnings is going to make a difference. I likely won't pay any taxes for the first three years and have a 50/50 shot of bankruptcy - but you think I should be worried about taxes.

Ed, can you show me one single entrepreneur who ever made the leap or not based on tax rates?

DEAR, YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND ENTREPRENEURSHIP. And you never will until you are one.

Bingo! The other misconception is that the wealthy are the ones starting new businesses. That is actually quite rare. Most new businesses are started by average everyday people who think they have a great idea or think they can provide the same product or service at a better price, and sometimes it's just by pure luck that they stumble upon something that takes off. Just ask Mark Zuckerberg.

And they get the money, how?
But entrpreneurship is not just starting businesses from scratch. It is about buying existing busineses to grow as well. And yes tax rates play a part in those decisions.

I don't know of any wealthy people who decided to stop trying to make more money because they thought the tax rates were too high. You do realize if that were the case, then we would have been sunk back in the 50's when the top rate was 90%. Of course, you also don't have a clue that nobody actually pays high tax rates, because there are so many ways around paying them. The fact is that most of the wealthy pay less than average middle class Americans, but you buffoons keep going back to the well crying that they pay too much. Regardless of the top rate, the wealthy have never paid anywhere close to the top rate at any time this past century. The sad thing is that you should know this.

So people find ways to shield income to avoid high tax rates. But no one decides not to make an investment because of the tax consequences.
Congratulations. I didnt do anything and you proved you dont know what the fuck you'retalking about.

 

[auditor0007]

hard??? cut the corporate tax to $0 and the cap gains tax to $0 and you have $billion and billions more for those inclined to be innovative!! Gee the liberal got another one wrong. What a surprise. Ask yourself, do you want to be a liberal all your life?

Oh Ed, I love it when you pretend to understand entrepreneurs. Let's roll play, I have a great idea for a new business, I go lenders but they all want a personal guarantee and the equity in my home to lend me the money to take that risk. And I need to quit my job to take that risk. Plus, I'm sitting in secular stagnation and worried about losing my house, sending my kids to college and retiring. But you (Mr. Never an Entrepreneur) think that a tax rate on earnings is going to make a difference. I likely won't pay any taxes for the first three years and have a 50/50 shot of bankruptcy - but you think I should be worried about taxes.

Ed, can you show me one single entrepreneur who ever made the leap or not based on tax rates?

DEAR, YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND ENTREPRENEURSHIP. And you never will until you are one.

Bingo! The other misconception is that the wealthy are the ones starting new businesses. That is actually quite rare. Most new businesses are started by average everyday people who think they have a great idea or think they can provide the same product or service at a better price, and sometimes it's just by pure luck that they stumble upon something that takes off. Just ask Mark Zuckerberg.

And they get the money, how?
But entrpreneurship is not just starting businesses from scratch. It is about buying existing busineses to grow as well. And yes tax rates play a part in those decisions.

I don't know of any wealthy people who decided to stop trying to make more money because they thought the tax rates were too high. You do realize if that were the case, then we would have been sunk back in the 50's when the top rate was 90%. Of course, you also don't have a clue that nobody actually pays high tax rates, because there are so many ways around paying them. The fact is that most of the wealthy pay less than average middle class Americans, but you buffoons keep going back to the well crying that they pay too much. Regardless of the top rate, the wealthy have never paid anywhere close to the top rate at any time this past century. The sad thing is that you should know this.

STFU...you don't even have a clue on how the federal income tax works or where it goes......here's a hint....it doesn't go towards paying for social programs or making your life better...bet me and lose on this one, little fella.....

I really hate when imbeciles like you bother posting stupid shit. Go back to school and get an education sonny, and please grow up and act like an adult if you want to be considered one.

 

[The Rabbi]

Oh Ed, I love it when you pretend to understand entrepreneurs. Let's roll play, I have a great idea for a new business, I go lenders but they all want a personal guarantee and the equity in my home to lend me the money to take that risk. And I need to quit my job to take that risk. Plus, I'm sitting in secular stagnation and worried about losing my house, sending my kids to college and retiring. But you (Mr. Never an Entrepreneur) think that a tax rate on earnings is going to make a difference. I likely won't pay any taxes for the first three years and have a 50/50 shot of bankruptcy - but you think I should be worried about taxes.

Ed, can you show me one single entrepreneur who ever made the leap or not based on tax rates?

DEAR, YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND ENTREPRENEURSHIP. And you never will until you are one.

Bingo! The other misconception is that the wealthy are the ones starting new businesses. That is actually quite rare. Most new businesses are started by average everyday people who think they have a great idea or think they can provide the same product or service at a better price, and sometimes it's just by pure luck that they stumble upon something that takes off. Just ask Mark Zuckerberg.

And they get the money, how?
But entrpreneurship is not just starting businesses from scratch. It is about buying existing busineses to grow as well. And yes tax rates play a part in those decisions.

I don't know of any wealthy people who decided to stop trying to make more money because they thought the tax rates were too high. You do realize if that were the case, then we would have been sunk back in the 50's when the top rate was 90%. Of course, you also don't have a clue that nobody actually pays high tax rates, because there are so many ways around paying them. The fact is that most of the wealthy pay less than average middle class Americans, but you buffoons keep going back to the well crying that they pay too much. Regardless of the top rate, the wealthy have never paid anywhere close to the top rate at any time this past century. The sad thing is that you should know this.

STFU...you don't even have a clue on how the federal income tax works or where it goes......here's a hint....it doesn't go towards paying for social programs or making your life better...bet me and lose on this one, little fella.....

I really hate when imbeciles like you bother posting stupid shit. Go back to school and get an education sonny, and please grow up and act like an adult if you want to be considered one.

Translation: He showed what I wrote was contradictory and hurt my feelings. Wahh!

 

[auditor0007]

hard??? cut the corporate tax to $0 and the cap gains tax to $0 and you have $billion and billions more for those inclined to be innovative!! Gee the liberal got another one wrong. What a surprise. Ask yourself, do you want to be a liberal all your life?

Oh Ed, I love it when you pretend to understand entrepreneurs. Let's roll play, I have a great idea for a new business, I go lenders but they all want a personal guarantee and the equity in my home to lend me the money to take that risk. And I need to quit my job to take that risk. Plus, I'm sitting in secular stagnation and worried about losing my house, sending my kids to college and retiring. But you (Mr. Never an Entrepreneur) think that a tax rate on earnings is going to make a difference. I likely won't pay any taxes for the first three years and have a 50/50 shot of bankruptcy - but you think I should be worried about taxes.

Ed, can you show me one single entrepreneur who ever made the leap or not based on tax rates?

DEAR, YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND ENTREPRENEURSHIP. And you never will until you are one.

Bingo! The other misconception is that the wealthy are the ones starting new businesses. That is actually quite rare. Most new businesses are started by average everyday people who think they have a great idea or think they can provide the same product or service at a better price, and sometimes it's just by pure luck that they stumble upon something that takes off. Just ask Mark Zuckerberg.

And they get the money, how?
But entrpreneurship is not just starting businesses from scratch. It is about buying existing busineses to grow as well. And yes tax rates play a part in those decisions.

I don't know of any wealthy people who decided to stop trying to make more money because they thought the tax rates were too high. You do realize if that were the case, then we would have been sunk back in the 50's when the top rate was 90%. Of course, you also don't have a clue that nobody actually pays high tax rates, because there are so many ways around paying them. The fact is that most of the wealthy pay less than average middle class Americans, but you buffoons keep going back to the well crying that they pay too much. Regardless of the top rate, the wealthy have never paid anywhere close to the top rate at any time this past century. The sad thing is that you should know this.

I know more about this than I should know. Agreed: lower the rate, remove loopholes. Not sure about mortgage deduction for primary residence? ~40% is way too high FED rate.

I have seen charts that clearly show NO MATTER what the tax rate is (91% 75% 28%) the FED has been unable to collect more than 20% * GDP since forever. Make tax rate 10% or 20% one page Rand Paul style. Get on with it.

The point is that nobody pays that 40% rate, so it really doesn't matter. We do need enough revenue to pay the bills. Our biggest problem is that neither Dems nor Republicans ever want to pay the bills. The Dems spend too much and the conservative Republicans think we can generate enough revenue to cover the bills with a 10% tax rate, which is ludicrous. Take away the Bush tax cuts and the two unpaid wars, and the debt would still be well under $10 trillion, the economy would be in better shape, and the rich would be doing just fine.

 

[The Rabbi]

Oh Ed, I love it when you pretend to understand entrepreneurs. Let's roll play, I have a great idea for a new business, I go lenders but they all want a personal guarantee and the equity in my home to lend me the money to take that risk. And I need to quit my job to take that risk. Plus, I'm sitting in secular stagnation and worried about losing my house, sending my kids to college and retiring. But you (Mr. Never an Entrepreneur) think that a tax rate on earnings is going to make a difference. I likely won't pay any taxes for the first three years and have a 50/50 shot of bankruptcy - but you think I should be worried about taxes.

Ed, can you show me one single entrepreneur who ever made the leap or not based on tax rates?

DEAR, YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND ENTREPRENEURSHIP. And you never will until you are one.

Bingo! The other misconception is that the wealthy are the ones starting new businesses. That is actually quite rare. Most new businesses are started by average everyday people who think they have a great idea or think they can provide the same product or service at a better price, and sometimes it's just by pure luck that they stumble upon something that takes off. Just ask Mark Zuckerberg.

And they get the money, how?
But entrpreneurship is not just starting businesses from scratch. It is about buying existing busineses to grow as well. And yes tax rates play a part in those decisions.

I don't know of any wealthy people who decided to stop trying to make more money because they thought the tax rates were too high. You do realize if that were the case, then we would have been sunk back in the 50's when the top rate was 90%. Of course, you also don't have a clue that nobody actually pays high tax rates, because there are so many ways around paying them. The fact is that most of the wealthy pay less than average middle class Americans, but you buffoons keep going back to the well crying that they pay too much. Regardless of the top rate, the wealthy have never paid anywhere close to the top rate at any time this past century. The sad thing is that you should know this.

I know more about this than I should know. Agreed: lower the rate, remove loopholes. Not sure about mortgage deduction for primary residence? ~40% is way too high FED rate.

I have seen charts that clearly show NO MATTER what the tax rate is (91% 75% 28%) the FED has been unable to collect more than 20% * GDP since forever. Make tax rate 10% or 20% one page Rand Paul style. Get on with it.

The point is that nobody pays that 40% rate, so it really doesn't matter. We do need enough revenue to pay the bills. Our biggest problem is that neither Dems nor Republicans ever want to pay the bills. The Dems spend too much and the conservative Republicans think we can generate enough revenue to cover the bills with a 10% tax rate, which is ludicrous. Take away the Bush tax cuts and the two unpaid wars, and the debt would still be well under $10 trillion, the economy would be in better shape, and the rich would be doing just fine.

Wrong.
Take away the increased spending under Obama and the Democrats and leave the tax cuts and we would be showing balanced budgets.
You're not real bright on this "income tax" thing, are you?

 

[auditor0007]

Bingo! The other misconception is that the wealthy are the ones starting new businesses.

dear very stupid and liberal, venture capitalists who fund most big new businesses are rich, and folks like Gates Jobs Zuckersburg Brin Musk were rich very early on but still always needed more $billions to expand their businesses. Taxing away billions from them for liberal govt to waste on crippling welfare is a direct attack on economic growth, jobs, and those who receive the welfare.

Do you have the IQ to understand?

Edward, your IQ is so low you don't understand anything other than what radio talk show hosts tell you. It is so easy to see who the stupid people are, because all of them blame welfare recipients for taking away all the rich people's money. Welfare is not the problem bozo; low wages are the problem. Without demand, there is no point to expand business or to start new businesses, because without customers, there is no profit motive.

 

[auditor0007]

hard??? cut the corporate tax to $0 and the cap gains tax to $0 and you have $billion and billions more for those inclined to be innovative!! Gee the liberal got another one wrong. What a surprise. Ask yourself, do you want to be a liberal all your life?

Oh Ed, I love it when you pretend to understand entrepreneurs. Let's roll play, I have a great idea for a new business, I go lenders but they all want a personal guarantee and the equity in my home to lend me the money to take that risk. And I need to quit my job to take that risk. Plus, I'm sitting in secular stagnation and worried about losing my house, sending my kids to college and retiring. But you (Mr. Never an Entrepreneur) think that a tax rate on earnings is going to make a difference. I likely won't pay any taxes for the first three years and have a 50/50 shot of bankruptcy - but you think I should be worried about taxes.

Ed, can you show me one single entrepreneur who ever made the leap or not based on tax rates?

DEAR, YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND ENTREPRENEURSHIP. And you never will until you are one.

Bingo! The other misconception is that the wealthy are the ones starting new businesses. That is actually quite rare. Most new businesses are started by average everyday people who think they have a great idea or think they can provide the same product or service at a better price, and sometimes it's just by pure luck that they stumble upon something that takes off. Just ask Mark Zuckerberg.

And they get the money, how?
But entrpreneurship is not just starting businesses from scratch. It is about buying existing busineses to grow as well. And yes tax rates play a part in those decisions.

I don't know of any wealthy people who decided to stop trying to make more money because they thought the tax rates were too high. You do realize if that were the case, then we would have been sunk back in the 50's when the top rate was 90%. Of course, you also don't have a clue that nobody actually pays high tax rates, because there are so many ways around paying them. The fact is that most of the wealthy pay less than average middle class Americans, but you buffoons keep going back to the well crying that they pay too much. Regardless of the top rate, the wealthy have never paid anywhere close to the top rate at any time this past century. The sad thing is that you should know this.

So people find ways to shield income to avoid high tax rates. But no one decides not to make an investment because of the tax consequences.
Congratulations. I didnt do anything and you proved you dont know what the fuck you'retalking about.

Yea, you're right. I'm not going to continue to expand my business because I don't want to pay an extra 5% on my next $200,000 in earnings. You obviously know nothing when it comes to the motivation of those who run their own businesses.

 

[The Rabbi]

Bingo! The other misconception is that the wealthy are the ones starting new businesses.

dear very stupid and liberal, venture capitalists who fund most big new businesses are rich, and folks like Gates Jobs Zuckersburg Brin Musk were rich very early on but still always needed more $billions to expand their businesses. Taxing away billions from them for liberal govt to waste on crippling welfare is a direct attack on economic growth, jobs, and those who receive the welfare.

Do you have the IQ to understand?

Edward, your IQ is so low you don't understand anything other than what radio talk show hosts tell you. It is so easy to see who the stupid people are, because all of them blame welfare recipients for taking away all the rich people's money. Welfare is not the problem bozo; low wages are the problem. Without demand, there is no point to expand business or to start new businesses, because without customers, there is no profit motive.

You have an IQ slightly above day old chili. The problem is not low wages. The problem is a sclerotic labor market caused by over regulation.

 

[auditor0007]

Bingo! The other misconception is that the wealthy are the ones starting new businesses. That is actually quite rare. Most new businesses are started by average everyday people who think they have a great idea or think they can provide the same product or service at a better price, and sometimes it's just by pure luck that they stumble upon something that takes off. Just ask Mark Zuckerberg.

And they get the money, how?
But entrpreneurship is not just starting businesses from scratch. It is about buying existing busineses to grow as well. And yes tax rates play a part in those decisions.

I don't know of any wealthy people who decided to stop trying to make more money because they thought the tax rates were too high. You do realize if that were the case, then we would have been sunk back in the 50's when the top rate was 90%. Of course, you also don't have a clue that nobody actually pays high tax rates, because there are so many ways around paying them. The fact is that most of the wealthy pay less than average middle class Americans, but you buffoons keep going back to the well crying that they pay too much. Regardless of the top rate, the wealthy have never paid anywhere close to the top rate at any time this past century. The sad thing is that you should know this.

STFU...you don't even have a clue on how the federal income tax works or where it goes......here's a hint....it doesn't go towards paying for social programs or making your life better...bet me and lose on this one, little fella.....

I really hate when imbeciles like you bother posting stupid shit. Go back to school and get an education sonny, and please grow up and act like an adult if you want to be considered one.

Translation: He showed what I wrote was contradictory and hurt my feelings. Wahh!

How can imbeciles like you and Dale hurt my feelings. My feelings are supposed to be hurt by the idiotic shit you post? Give me a break.