You Taught The GOP A Lesson: You Want Higher Taxes So They Will Grant Your Wish

[bripat9643]

Then disprove it. Stop whining and *****-slap it if you can. Bring it.

I just did, turd. The fact that you don't understand that only shows what an economic ignoramus you are.

Of course you did. What a good boy. Now run along and play, but here; let mommy make sure your headgear is on securely.

ROFL! Do you think no one understands that you're running away like a scared little puppy?

 

[bripat9643]

Because abject morons are ignoring history and sound political economics; and thus incorrectly think it does not benefit economically. Ergo the bickering.

None too complicated, I'd think.

Sound economics?


BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

Liberals kill me!

 

[TakeAStepBack]

The math tells a different story, history and sound "political economics" (if sucha thing existed) are saying to you "correlation does not imply causation."

The math is also telling you that you're a ******* moron. Here, I'll give you a preview:

16 trillion in debt
1.3 trillion in annual deficit spends
Tax hikes for the rich - an addition ~80 billion dollar annually.

Where does this leave us?

16 trillion in debt and counting. ~1.2 trillion in deficit spends annually.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Obama would have been better off going after the military budget. But he likes using the military, so that wouldn't happen. This is all one big mind **** for retards. Sadly, they love it and think it's great.

 

[Skull Pilot]

who drives the economy? the middle class. when the middle class has more money it is string, which int urn allow them to purchase more goods and services, which in turn creates more business for those companies, which in turn increases revenues and profits, which in turn grows companies, which in turn allows them to expand, which in turn allows them to hire more workers, which in turn creates more tax payers, which in turn allows those new workers to spend more money in the economy.

is this concept lost on conservatives?

And what does that have to do with government workers?

Leaving money in the hands of the people would do exactly the same thing. If I paid less in taxes then I would save spend or invest more and we all know that the private sector uses money more efficiently than does the government.

if you made over $1M a year, are you really going to dump $750K+ a year into the economy? or are you actually going sit sit on the majority of that wealth?

so government workers arent consumers?

All government workers do is take money from one sector of the economy and move it to another there is no net gain in fact there is a net loss.

And If I spend save or invest that 750K it all goes into the economy does it not?

Spending it is self explanatory. if I invest a company uses the money to expand its market or to but equipment etc etc. if I save it the bank loans it out. no matter how you slice it the money ends up in the economy.

 

[martybegan]

If you really think the GOP is going to be stupid enough to raise taxes on the middle class because the rich will be finally paying their fair share, you're delusional.

The rich pay beyond their fair share now.

No argument. But we do not tax based on fairness. We tax based on economic need and benefit to the economy, or should, anyway.

Are you ******* kidding me??? The whole democratic tax plan is BASED on the critique the rich are not paying thier fair share. If we based budget decsions on economics (GASP!!) the only true way to fix things is through massive spending cuts, coupled with ACROSS THE BOARD tax increases.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

And what does that have to do with government workers?

Leaving money in the hands of the people would do exactly the same thing. If I paid less in taxes then I would save spend or invest more and we all know that the private sector uses money more efficiently than does the government.

if you made over $1M a year, are you really going to dump $750K+ a year into the economy? or are you actually going sit sit on the majority of that wealth?

so government workers arent consumers?

All government workers do is take money from one sector of the economy and move it to another there is no net gain in fact there is a net loss.

And If I spend save or invest that 750K it all goes into the economy does it not?

Spending it is self explanatory. if I invest a company uses the money to expand its market or to but equipment etc etc. if I save it the bank loans it out. no matter how you slice it the money ends up in the economy.

Nuh huh! These rich bastards are putting it under their mattress like Uncle Scrooge in Duck Tales.

 

[Skull Pilot]

That's exactly wrong. The dollar does not evaporate; it's spent.

Moreover, the reason progressive taxes work so well, beyond redistributive effect, which is also vital, is that it taxes monies that are less likely to be spent, which would languish in net worths of the very well-off. If that stangant dollar is taken in tax and spent into the economy by the government, it actually gets it moving through the economy, mobilizing capital and growing the market economy.

And who benefits most from economic growth? The very well-off. Things get better and their incomes rise right with it. Meanwhile, not true of a service worker at McDonald's. Their pay does not rise with the increased economic activity; only the McDonald's owner's income does, which typically means they'll hire more people to cover the increased demand, and only raise the individual worker's pay if the prevailing wage or minimum wage increases force them to.

If the dollar was left in the private sector it would not be spent, saved or invested?

No one stuffs money in a mattress anymore you know.

If I invested the 60K a year I pay in taxes it would do more good for the economy than it does now.

Any one of the three, however, retained earnings seem to be what's happening more so, and to an alarming degree, currently. So most of the money the President proposes be taken in tax (then spent into the economy of course) is indeed, by and large, money sitting and doing little to benefit the economy as a whole.

Bam Bam wants to raise income taxes
Since when is income money that is just sitting there?

Income is the most fluid and fastest moving money in the economy.

 

[Skull Pilot]

is it lost on you that this is what those individuals already do?

Yes, that's extremely lost on me, because it's not true. No one just SITS on 7 figures. In fact, besides trust fund babies, if you've got 7 figures it's because you put your money to work, not because you sat on it.

so an individual making $1M spends $1M a year by purchasing goods and services correct?

if this were true, Romney would have personally dumped nearly $14M in the economy last year.

Buying stock and investing puts money into the economy.

 

[Koios]

The math tells a different story, history and sound "political economics" (if sucha thing existed) are saying to you "correlation does not imply causation."
The math is also telling you that you're a ******* moron. Here, I'll give you a preview:

16 trillion in debt
1.3 trillion in annual deficit spends
Tax hikes for the rich - an addition ~80 billion dollar annually.

Where does this leave us?

16 trillion in debt and counting. ~1.2 trillion in deficit spends annually.

What math?

Yes, political economics does exist, even if as is obvious, you're oblivious. Noted political economist include Robert Reich, for example. It's the study of the economic impact of government policy, essentailly. Even WSJ/Fox News lists Reich as one the most noted and esteemed, political economists. For more, see Google. As Albert once said, genius is not knowing the answers but knowing where to find them. (I paraphrase). If he's right, even you can be a genius ... Google makes you thus.

Math is numerical calculation, and does not speculate on intelligence. If you knew that, you'd know the answer is not the math; it's merely a "question" on the TV show, Jeopardy.

Ain't learnin' fun, TASB?

 

[dblack]

If you really think the GOP is going to be stupid enough to raise taxes on the middle class because the rich will be finally paying their fair share, you're delusional.

The rich pay beyond their fair share now.

No argument. But we do not tax based on fairness. We tax based on economic need and benefit to the economy, or should, anyway.

I couldn't disagree with this more. The taxation power should be constrained by some sane measure of equal protection, and currently it isn't. I'd like to see an amendment passed to pin down what the power to tax entails - specifically to reiterate that it is not intended as a tool for social engineering or backdoor mandates via targeted deductions.

 

[auditor0007]

Yep, OBama is the taxing President..and they love it and voted for him AGAIN

put in the highest cigarette tax increase of ANY PRESIDENT as soon as he walked through the white house doors...and who does it hit MORE

THE POOR..

and then we have ObamaTax about ready to hit people...whoohoo

don't worry he did it only because wuvs you

and now he's begging to raise people taxes and you follow along like little sheep

but you sure showed them Republicans

Tax rates are lower than they were under Reagan. End of story. You dipshits are amazing.

 

[Paulie]

If you really think the GOP is going to be stupid enough to raise taxes on the middle class because the rich will be finally paying their fair share, you're delusional.

The rich pay beyond their fair share now.

We tax based on economic need and benefit to the economy, or should, anyway.

Yeah Karl Marx coined the slogan on that.

 

[Koios]

The rich pay beyond their fair share now.

No argument. But we do not tax based on fairness. We tax based on economic need and benefit to the economy, or should, anyway.

Are you ******* kidding me??? The whole democratic tax plan is BASED on the critique the rich are not paying thier fair share. If we based budget decsions on economics (GASP!!) the only true way to fix things is through massive spending cuts, coupled with ACROSS THE BOARD tax increases.

No; I'm not. Where you're confused is by thinking politics is real. It's not. It's just politics. If passed, with the aid of political rhetoric, then what the economists suggested, goes into effect.

Does that help?

 

[Skull Pilot]

If the dollar was left in the private sector it would not be spent, saved or invested?

No one stuffs money in a mattress anymore you know.

If I invested the 60K a year I pay in taxes it would do more good for the economy than it does now.

Any one of the three, however, retained earnings seem to be what's happening more so, and to an alarming degree, currently. So most of the money the President proposes be taken in tax (then spent into the economy of course) is indeed, by and large, money sitting and doing little to benefit the economy as a whole.

Once again, a liberal demonstrates the reason for his idiotic agenda is economic ignorance. Retained earnings means savings. Anyone who doesn't understand that savings are beneficial to the economy isn't qualified to vote.

Many times retained earnings are nothing but money a business owner has already paid taxes on but just hasn't taken as salary because the money isn't there.

Ask any owner of an S corp how that works. (like me)

We have over 200K in retained earnings that we have paid income taxes on but we don't have that money in liquid form because over the past 5 years we have reinvested a huge sum of money in capital improvements and it will take up to 7 years or more for us to recoup the income that we already paid taxes on due to ******* depreciation schedules.

That is how a small business owner like me may look like he made 300K on paper but actually made much less.

 

[Koios]

The rich pay beyond their fair share now.

We tax based on economic need and benefit to the economy, or should, anyway.

Yeah Karl Marx coined the slogan on that.

Really? In what text?

 

[Paulie]

We tax based on economic need and benefit to the economy, or should, anyway.

Yeah Karl Marx coined the slogan on that.

Really? In what text?

'From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.'

We tax based on economic need.

 

[Katzndogz]

The top 10% have 90% of the wealth. I find it hard to believe that raising taxes on them won't solve our problems.

When the rich paid their fair share, we had balanced budgets.

The top 1% already pay 70% of all income taxes paid. The wealthy also pay more in property tax, sales tax and every other kind of tax. If they were taxed at 90%, the collected tax would run the government for 8.5 days and not touch the debt at all.

You might find it hard to believe, but that doesn't change the facts that the rich just aren't that rich. There are no trillionaires in the world. Then too, there is the idea that even if the rich are heavily taxed, it can only be done one time. 1,700 of America's wealthy left the country last year alone. They paid the taxes due, but there will be no more. Then too, taxes depends on the continued efforts of the greatest producers to generate income. They don't have to generate anything. They can take what they have, close the business and generate nothing, like Hostess did.

If taxing the rich was a solution, California would not be in the fiscal straits that it is.

so individuals making tens of millions annually arent considered rich?

Yes they are rich, but you gotta face facts, 1% cannot provide the cradle to grave retirement that 99% demand. It has nothing to do with a fair share. It's about punishing the rich for having the audacity to be rich in the first place. A rich man who is working at 80 should be punished and what he has taken from him to support someone who is 30 but wants to sit on his ass.

 

[Koios]

The rich pay beyond their fair share now.

No argument. But we do not tax based on fairness. We tax based on economic need and benefit to the economy, or should, anyway.

I couldn't disagree with this more. The taxation power should be constrained by some sane measure of equal protection, and currently it isn't. I'd like to see an amendment passed to pin down what the power to tax entails - specifically to reiterate that it is not intended as a tool for social engineering or backdoor mandates via targeted deductions.

It is. We tax incomes, equally under law. We do not tax individuals, simply because we like one more than the other.

For example: Bill Gates and I pay the same taxes on the first $100,000 of our incomes. Same treatment, under law. But Bill has a smidge more income, and it's that more income that's taxed at a higher rate, which Bill knows, and knew going in. But it seems it was a choice Bill was willing to make.

Seems fair to me.

 

[Koios]

Yeah Karl Marx coined the slogan on that.

Really? In what text?

'From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.'

We tax based on economic need.

So Karl said something different? Seems you were wrong. Imagine that.