Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

The Spore Depot
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5  [ show all ]
help the rich...step on the poor, some more
    #1210662 -

George Bush called it an economic stimulus package. What a joker...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, you lucky duckies! Bush plan could shift tax burden to wage earners
Posted on Saturday, January 11 @ 08:47:14 EST
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By R.C. Longworth, Detroit Free Press

By calling on Congress to eliminate taxes on stock dividends, President George W. Bush this week fired the first shot in a long-range campaign to rewrite the nation's tax code and revolutionize the relationship between the government and its taxpayers.

In his speech Tuesday, Bush called his proposals a "jobs and growth plan," and said it would stimulate the nation's economy with tax cuts aimed mostly at "middle-income Americans."

However, most economists said the cuts actually would benefit the super-rich. Even conservatives doubted the cuts, which Bush wants to take effect this year, would offer much stimulus now.

But this misses the point, the economists said.

The real story, they insisted, is the guiding philosophy behind the cuts -- a shift in the tax burden from earnings by business and investors toward taxes on income and consumption.



"It's a tax reform, rather than an economic stimulus," said Kevin Hassett, an economist at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative research group based in Washington, D.C. "That's how to think about it. This is a sign that they are serious about fundamental tax reform."

"Hassett is exactly right," said Lawrence Mishel, president of the liberal Economic Policy Institute, another Washington think tank.

"This . . . has nothing to do with creating jobs or fixing the economy in 2003. This is about lowering taxes -- and permanently. This is a move to eliminate taxes on capital and only tax wages."

Economists on both the right and the left agreed that, if Congress eliminates the tax on dividends, Bush's next target will be cutting corporate taxes, speeding up depreciation schedules on investment and possibly eliminating the capital gains tax.

Instead, there would be an increased reliance on the income tax -- and a flatter tax at that, with reduced top rates that would shift the burden to lower-wage earners. In the long run, the economists said, the administration is looking toward a national sales or consumption tax.

Economists consider both ideas regressive. A flatter income tax violates the principle that higher earners should pay higher rates of tax. And a consumption tax hits poor and middle-class taxpayers hardest, because they spend a higher percentage of their incomes just to stay alive.

The Bush strategy, Hassett said, foresees such a consumption tax, as the administration moves to "get people's capital income off the tax rolls altogether."

The administration had already been moving in this direction, with the tax cuts passed in 2001 to be phased in over the next decade. R. Glenn Hubbard, head of the President's Council of Economic Advisers, called in the past for a flatter tax system, and Paul O'Neill, the recently ousted Treasury secretary, was reported to favor replacing the corporate income tax with a national sales tax.

Bush is urging Congress to speed up implementation of the 2001 tax cuts, due to take effect in 2004 and 2006, which will benefit most high-bracket earners, and make them permanent.

But the administration's earlier tax proposals involved lowering existing tax rates, not eliminating them. The proposal to eliminate the dividend tax, and do it now, was a bold and radical measure to wipe out a tax altogether, at an admitted 10-year cost of $364 billion.

Bush said his proposals would help the economy, create jobs and "bring real benefits to middle-income Americans." Most economists doubted the plans would do any of those things.

Conservative economists like Hassett said Bush's proposals would end the double taxation of dividends, reduce corporation corruption by forcing companies to pay out their money in dividends, and encourage investment that might trickle down eventually to lower wage earners. More liberal economists refused to concede even these benefits.

"It's as un-stimulative as you can imagine," said Robert McIntyre, director of Citizens for Tax Justice, a liberal analyst of tax data. "It takes effect a long time from now, and it goes to people who don't spend."

The administration says Bush's proposals will cut taxes now by $1,083 for an average family of four earning $39,000.

But Burman and others said their figures showed that 65 percent of the benefit from the dividend tax proposal would go to the wealthiest 5 percent of Americans and 42 percent would go to the top 1 percent, where stock ownership is concentrated. The nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center in Washington, D.C., said the actual tax break for the theoretical family of four would be closer to $50.

Bush said about half of all Americans own stock, and 35 million receive dividends, and so would benefit if the dividend tax were eliminated.

But economists pointed out that most of these people have minimal stock holdings, and even these small assets are usually in retirement or 401(k) accounts. These accounts are tax-free until they are cashed in, so their owners would get no immediate benefit.

In fact, they would lose, because all income from the accounts, including dividends, is treated as ordinary income and so is subject to the income tax.

? copyright 2003 Detroit Free Press

Reprinted from The Detroit Free Press:


--------------------
  -I'd rather have a frontal lobotomy than a bottle in front of me

CANADIAN CENTER FOR POLICY ALTERNATIVES

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: carbonhoots]
    #1210889 -

Currently about 400 families pay 95% of the collected income tax per year in America.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: carbonhoots]
    #1210893 -

Since the rich pay far more of the tax burden, they should get more of any tax relief. Here's a chart I posted earlier showing the breakdown of taxes paid.

Share of the Income Taxes Paid, by Income Earned.
Percent of Federal Individual Income Taxes Paid by High and Low Income Taxpayers, 1979 and 1989
Income Group.....1979.........1989
Highest 5%.........37.6%.......43.6%
Highest 10%.......49.5%.......54.5%
Highest 25%.......73.1%.......76.5%
Highest 50%.......93.2%.......93.9%
Lowest 50%........6.8%.........6.1%
Lowest 25%........0.5%.........0.7%
Source: Information Please Almanac, page 75. (1991)

Why should those who pay more not get more tax relief?



--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Post deleted by Administrator [Re: carbonhoots]
    #1210906 -



--------------------
Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.
3DSHROOMS is either clueless or the worlds biggest SCUMBAG
I lie and exagerate constantly... God Bless America!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: i am e goldstein]
    #1210928 -

Quote:
no level of respect for the middlclass or poor


How is it disrespectful to the poor to let those who pay the VAST majority of taxes to receive the majority of the benefits of any tax reform? It's not.

Quote:
watch what happens to real estate values because of this


Yes... lets watch. If someone selling a house wants to make a certain profit, he had to factor in the tax. Now to make the same profit he doesn't.

Quote:
the social programs needed to do so are being dismantled


Good. There never should have been any social programs.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Post deleted by Administrator [Re: ]
    #1210943 -



--------------------
Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.
3DSHROOMS is either clueless or the worlds biggest SCUMBAG
I lie and exagerate constantly... God Bless America!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: i am e goldstein]
    #1210955 -

It's too bad you would think I would lie about my heritage Kola. I don't. I have no reason to.

The statistic is one I heard a few months ago. There must be something in Google to back it up because the source I got it from was highly reliable.

Mitakuye Oyasin

Epelo.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: ]
    #1210958 -

We are All Related


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Post deleted by Administrator [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #1210967 -



--------------------
Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.
3DSHROOMS is either clueless or the worlds biggest SCUMBAG
I lie and exagerate constantly... God Bless America!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: i am e goldstein]
    #1210984 -

Quote:
what will we do with the rest of society left in the dust through all of this?


Family, friends, charities. It is not the place of government.

Quote:
in the meantime the young man can not properly feed, clothe and shelter his children WE require him to continue being responsible for


Then he should have been responsible enough not to have had them.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #1210986 -

You really are quite heartless, you know that?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Post deleted by Administrator [Re: ]
    #1210988 -



--------------------
Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.
3DSHROOMS is either clueless or the worlds biggest SCUMBAG
I lie and exagerate constantly... God Bless America!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: ]
    #1211001 -

Quote:
You really are quite heartless, you know that?


No, I'm not. I help family and friends. I also make donations.
I've even spent the last couple months worth of weekends helping the ex fix up the house she scrapped together the money to buy. I help those I wish, not those who expect it or feel they deserve it because "life isn't fair".


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: i am e goldstein]
    #1211006 -

Quote:
and to luv.... we are all related bro... that is the beauty and at the same time sin of it all.... we are all connected, but toatlly out of touch because of sound bites and statistics... we need to think about all of this...


Actually, I don't buy into the we are all related line, it was a response to someting Mr. M posted.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: i am e goldstein]
    #1211008 -

Thanks, I have always respected you as well.

I'll dig around a bit to see if I can find some data on that factoid.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #1211013 -

Asking people to take personal responsibility for their lives is a shameful outrage.

I thought you knew that.

As far as gifting people is concerned I do that as well. I would do more except I have a load of "dependents" I didn't ask for.

I wonder if I can claim them on my 1040 long form?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: ]
    #1211032 -

If you had to list their names there wouldn't be enough paper.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #1211130 -

http://www.house.gov/jct/x-45-00.pdf  Looking at this table it would seem we no longer have a graduated tax in place.  The top 10 percent earners are paying almost exactly the same percentage of they're income into federal income tax as the rest of us. If they are paying a larger percentage of federal income tax it is by this table what they would be paying, if everyone were paying a flat tax and there were no deductions.  The top 1 percent pay slightly more than they're share, but it only comes top about 5% more of they're total income. This is for the year 2000 maybe things have changed drastically since Bush was elected.
  Mr. Mushrooms as for 400 families paying 95% of income taxes, that would have to be some large extended families.  Using this chart they would include at least 69% of all wage earners. :wink: 

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: carbonhoots]
    #1211246 -

The Democrats always propose to lower the taxes on the poor, yet the poor pay shit for taxes. Lowering taxes paid by the rich and large corporations actually does something for the economy rather than just look good on your voting record.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #1211631 -

Quote:
Since the rich pay far more of the tax burden, they should get more of any tax relief.

Why should those who pay more not get more tax relief?



There is nothing wrong with this in theory, however if the goal is economic stimulous, should not the money be given to the people who will spend it? As one's income goes up, their average propensity to consume goes down, increasing thier average propensity to save. Ie: tax breaks for the rich do less for the economy than tax breaks for middle and lower class families.

G. W's buying money come election time. Thats all.


--------------------
"A study of the history of opinion is a necessary preliminary to the emancipation of the mind. I do not know which makes a man more conservative-to know nothing but the present, or nothing but the past." -John Maynard Keynes

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: I_Fart_Blue]
    #1211690 -

Quote:
There is nothing wrong with this in theory, however if the goal is economic stimulous, should not the money be given to the people who will spend it? As one's income goes up, their average propensity to consume goes down, increasing thier average propensity to save. Ie: tax breaks for the rich do less for the economy than tax breaks for middle and lower class families.


My parents are considered rich and they spend lots of money on anything from entertainment to home improvement. Where do you get the idea that the rich don't spend as much. If anything, they buy more shit.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: I_Fart_Blue]
    #1211692 -

Quote:
There is nothing wrong with this in theory, however if the goal is economic stimulous, should not the money be given to the people who will spend it? As one's income goes up, their average propensity to consume goes down, increasing thier average propensity to save. Ie: tax breaks for the rich do less for the economy than tax breaks for middle and lower class families.


My parents are considered rich and they spend lots of money on anything from entertainment to home improvement. Where do you get the idea that the rich don't spend as much? If anything, they buy more shit.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: carbonhoots]
    #1211907 -

Well first of all, you should consider who is talking of the matter if he's a Democrats then of course he/she will say the negative and Republican they'll favor it.

Quote:
"It's a tax reform, rather than an economic stimulus," said Kevin Hassett


Ok, TAXES are an economic obstacle making it harder to succeed. When you remove those obstacles, you make it easier to make more money or at least keep the money that'd be goin to taxes, and with more money there can be more jobs. WITH more jobs there's more people paying taxes so basically there's more taxes, better economy, and less unemployment.

Quote:
Bush said his proposals would help the economy, create jobs and "bring real benefits to middle-income Americans." Most economists doubted the plans would do any of those things.


Less taxes leaves more of earning which means if the boss can afford it he'll make another job. And with this, more ppl can have raises w/out their boss turning it down.

But the economy doesn't get better by government stepping in, shit if that were the case SOMEONE PLEASE NAME A SUCCESSFUL ECONOMIC SOCIALIST STATE... But as far to my knowledge no. And from what Mr. Clinton said during a press conference a while ago, a reporter asked, "Can you name a successful economic socialist state?" Clinton said, "No"

But as for the taxes cut, I'm all for it, the less government in my life is better for the whole of the American economy.
But that's me, I'd like to live a life w/out as much financial problem.

Dilauded

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: carbonhoots]
    #1212288 -

Who pays taxes?



Source: Internal Revenue Service, Statistics of Income Division, Unpublished Statistics, September 2002.


--------------------

America....FUCK YEAH!!!

Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: ]
    #1212454 -

Quote:
Currently about 400 families pay 95% of the collected income tax per year in America.



Come again? Not only do you not provide evidence to back that claim, but the figures that BOTH luvdemshrooms and Innvertigo provide (who are certainly sympathetic to tax cuts for the wealthy) contradict you. The top 50% percent pays 96% of the taxes. 50% of the US population does not equal 400 families . . . try more like 50 MILLION families or something like that.

Edited by EchoVortex (01/12/03 04:18 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: carbonhoots]
    #1212545 -

Cutting taxes doesn't help much if those cuts aren't matched by spending cuts.

The assumption that article makes is that not only will taxes be cut on income from stock dividends, but that the amount of revenue lost from those cuts will then be recovered from poor and middle class taxpayers. I don't recall seeing any figures on how much taxes on the poor and middle class will be increased.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: Anonymous]
    #1212584 -

I never said that the rich do not spend as much. Quit putting words in my mouth (keyboard?). I was refering to the Average Propensity to Consume. This is a relationship between planned consumption and disposable income. As a percentage, households with less income spend more of their disposable income, and save less. IE: a family of four with an income of $36000 is going to spend nearly all of that $36000, and save very little. However, a family with an income of $144000 will proportionately consume less and save more. I did not say that they did not spend more money. However this affects how additions to income are dealt with. A tax break of $1000 to a family with an income of $36000 will nearly all go to consumption, and very little to savings. What happens to that same tax break to the family with an income of $144000?


--------------------
"A study of the history of opinion is a necessary preliminary to the emancipation of the mind. I do not know which makes a man more conservative-to know nothing but the present, or nothing but the past." -John Maynard Keynes

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: EchoVortex]
    #1212610 -

Quote:
Come again? Not only do you not provide evidence to back that claim, but the figures that BOTH luvdemshrooms and Innvertigo provide (who are certainly sympathetic to tax cuts for the wealthy) contradict you. The top 50% percent pays 96% of the taxes. 50% of the US population does not equal 400 families . . . try more like 50 MILLION families or something like that. 



Hey, I could have been mistaken.  It was something I read somewhere from a reliable source.  I have been mistaken you know.  It's part of my charm. :wink:

:grin: :grin: :grin: :grin: :grin: :grin: :grin: :grin: :grin:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: ]
    #1212643 -

Very charming reply.  Plus you're a cool and civil guy who works hard to keep the Shroomery what it is.  Plus you backed me up against Swami.  All is forgiven. Yeah, I'm a sucker.  :smirk: 

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: EchoVortex]
    #1212654 -

Quote:
Very charming reply.  Plus you're a cool and civil guy who works hard to keep the Shroomery what it is.  Plus you backed me up against Swami.  All is forgiven. Yeah, I'm a sucker.  :smirk:   


I haven't said this before but just so you know it.

I'm a fan.  I read what you write in here and SPS.  Your absence was noted. :smile:

Thanks for the compliments.  I try real hard to make this a better place.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: ]
    #1212667 -

Quote:
I try real hard to make this a better place. 

And you succeed, thanks. :grin:


--------------------
Re-Defeat Bush in '04

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: I_Fart_Blue]
    #1212827 -

Quote:
however if the goal is economic stimulous, should not the money be given to the people who will spend it? As one's income goes up, their average propensity to consume goes down, increasing thier average propensity to save. Ie: tax breaks for the rich do less for the economy than tax breaks for middle and lower class families.


You are operating under a fallacy in economic thought. Money put into saving can quite often be better for the overall economy than just spending it outright. If someone invests money into some sort of interest bearing instrument, that money is actually being lent or used for something (it's not just sitting in a mattress or a bank vault). The user of this money spends it with the expectations of higher earning which will offset the cost of borrowing (the interest paid). In the case of business borrowing, this money can be used to hire employees or buy machinery which the borrower believes will improve his total profit by increasing his profit margin, increasing his production or both. The employees or the producer of the machinery will in turn spend the money in a manner which will also pay wages, buy goods or invest in capital.


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: Innvertigo]
    #1212879 -

Source: Internal Revenue Service, Statistics of Income Division, Unpublished Statistics, September 2002.

Unpublished? Where did you get this diagram from inny?

I seem to remember a big storm in england a while ago when it came out that Rupert Murdoch had paid less tax than an average wage-earner through clever use of the tax loopholes available to the rich.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: carbonhoots]
    #1212912 -

Rich don't care about the interests of the poor. While poor are going to risk their lives in Iraq to protect the interests of the rich.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: Xlea321]
    #1213111 -

you're the LAST one that should be critical over sources, at least i post them.....and i'm referring to OUR tax system not your's which is most likely WAY too much.


--------------------

America....FUCK YEAH!!!

Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: zeronio]
    #1213113 -

I think we should define WHAT is rich. Is it 30, 40, 50 60, 70 , 80, 90, 100 thousand? What is rich?


--------------------

America....FUCK YEAH!!!

Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: EchoVortex]
    #1213116 -

****who are certainly sympathetic to tax cuts for the wealthy****

where did you find this? I'm sympathetic towards those that pay taxes.


--------------------

America....FUCK YEAH!!!

Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: Innvertigo]
    #1213128 -

you're the LAST one that should be critical over sources, at least i post them

Well you didn't post that one did you? What site on the net did you get it from?

btw, why is it "unpublished"?


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: Xlea321]
    #1213163 -

****btw, why is it "unpublished"? ****

I have no idea, why not write them and find out.

www.taxpolicycenter.org

www.dailybeacon.utk.edu

www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/i...in01rt.xls

Yet another of a million sources on this topic

I realize it really doesn't matter what i post as a source because you are too ignorant to post your own...but if you do a small search on this topic you will find this to be true, besides this is an american topic and doesn't really concern you.

I'd like to see anything that you have that can prove me wrong. If you come up with something i will consider it, but i doubt you can or will.


--------------------

America....FUCK YEAH!!!

Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson

Edited by Innvertigo (01/13/03 12:05 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: Evolving]
    #1213165 -

Quote:
You are operating under a fallacy in economic thought. Money put into saving can quite often be better for the overall economy than just spending it outright. If someone invests money into some sort of interest bearing instrument, that money is actually being lent or used for something (it's not just sitting in a mattress or a bank vault). The user of this money spends it with the expectations of higher earning which will offset the cost of borrowing (the interest paid). In the case of business borrowing, this money can be used to hire employees or buy machinery which the borrower believes will improve his total profit by increasing his profit margin, increasing his production or both. The employees or the producer of the machinery will in turn spend the money in a manner which will also pay wages, buy goods or invest in capital.



It is hardly a fallacy, just another viewpoint. Yes, money which is saved can be beneficial to the economy. Under a fractional reserve banking system such as ours, a fraction of money which is deposited (lets say 85%) is available for lending. This can either go to private inidividuals, or companies as investment funds. However, businesses will not be rushing to banks looking for loans, no matter how low the discount rate, if the expectation of profit (ie:sales) is not there. However this could also be acheived by lowering the required reserve ratio, which would make available more money lending.

Well, private investment could certainly be source of money as you did not specify. The bond market is shot to hell thanks to the low discount rates. Not many people are interested in bonds that offer such low intrest, and businesses cannot afford to offer bonds at decent rate. Investor confidence is down...the masses are not breaking down the doors of brokerage houses, looking to sink their money into the next Enron.


In short, money is currently available for lending, and at cheap rates. These rates are lower than corperations would be paying to investors. Money at financial institutions is not being lent out for investment at this time, quite the opposite in fact. The problem is not that money is not available at low rates, that is not the case at all. Investment needs to occur, however it will not without the anticipation of profit.


--------------------
"A study of the history of opinion is a necessary preliminary to the emancipation of the mind. I do not know which makes a man more conservative-to know nothing but the present, or nothing but the past." -John Maynard Keynes

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: Xlea321]
    #1213171 -

Top 1% makes $313,000

Top 5% makes $128,000

Top 10% makes $92,000

Top 25% makes $55,000

Top 50% makes $27,682

wow if you make over 27,682 you're rich


--------------------

America....FUCK YEAH!!!

Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #1213200 -

"Why should those who pay more not get more tax relief?"

Because they don't need it. It's not "relief", it's just a gift. They're already rich, extremely rich. It's the poor people who are in need of relief. I'm sorry, but I just don't see the logic in giving rich people more money. I don't understand how this helps.


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: Phluck]
    #1213213 -

****Because they don't need it. It's not "relief", it's just a gift. ****

so you determine who needs how much? How come you find this ok but at the same time find it an intrusion of your rights when someone tells you that you don't need drugs or the need to abort a child but it's ok to determine that a person doesn't need a certain amount of money.

Some people find 30,000 a year more than they need, that's not much.

****They're already rich, extremely rich. ****

What's rich to you?

****t's the poor people who are in need of relief.****

so we should give them taxes back that they haven't paid? That doesn't sound right....what is poor in your eyes? 10,000 a year? 20, 30?

****but I just don't see the logic in giving rich people more money*****

it's their money, i don't see the logic of stealing from the rich and give to those that don't contribute (relativley).

****I don't understand how this helps****

it helps on the consumer level....


--------------------

America....FUCK YEAH!!!

Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson

Edited by Innvertigo (01/13/03 01:27 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: Phluck]
    #1213411 -

Phluck writes:

It's not "relief", it's just a gift.

Incorrect. The money is THEIRS to begin with. All the new measure means is that they now get to KEEP what is already theirs, or at least to keep MORE of it than previously -- I don't know if the measure means that ALL income from dividend-producing shares is now to be completely tax-exempt or only part of it.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: Innvertigo]
    #1213732 -

So it's basically people earning over $27 grand who pay most of the tax? That's pretty much what I thought. I thought you meant guys like Bill Gates paid most of the tax.

So why does three times as much welfare go to corporations than goes to the poor? Seeing as the guys who earn over 27,000 will more than likely need welfare at some point in their lives - why are they denied their own tax dollars?


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: Xlea321]
    #1213837 -

***I thought you meant guys like Bill Gates paid most of the tax. ****

they do...they pay the most, hence recieve the most back. I thought this was common knowledge, apparantly not (and why do you care about the American tax code anyways?)

****Seeing as the guys who earn over 27,000 will more than likely need welfare at some point in their lives ****

I earn more than this and will never be on welfare and have never thought of it as a solution to my financial problems.


--------------------

America....FUCK YEAH!!!

Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: Innvertigo]
    #1213854 -

they do...they pay the most.

Not if they exploit tax loopholes they don't.

hence recieve the most back.

That's one way of looking at it i suppose  :grin:

I earn more than this and will never be on welfare

No-one knows what tomorrow may bring inny. Not even you. 


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: Xlea321]
    #1213874 -

***Not if they exploit tax loopholes they don't****

You hate those that have more money than you, don't you?

****That's one way of looking at it i suppose ****

It's the right thing to do. If i pay $5 in taxes and you pay nothing who should get their money back?

****No-one knows what tomorrow may bring inny***

I know my pride would never let me accept welfare, i have too much to offer with the knowledge i have (school etc.) I would work at Mcdonalds before i'd go on welfare.


--------------------

America....FUCK YEAH!!!

Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: Phred]
    #1214029 -

Quote:
The money is THEIRS to begin with. All the new measure means is that they now get to KEEP what is already theirs, or at least to keep MORE of it than previously -- I don't know if the measure means that ALL income from dividend-producing shares is now to be completely tax-exempt or only part of it.




This is a real classic. Meant to make it sound like the rich are being picked on.

Even if that were true, would it not be for the greater good if adequate wealth were avaliable publicly for schools, toll-free roads, and hostipals+insurance?

But it's not true. I say that all personal fortunes depend on many more people than just the person who holds the fortune. There is a collectivist element in all our social affairs. It takes lots of minimum wage workers who deserve better than there getting in order to generate these fortunes. (Walmart NEEDS it's cheap labour to be a fat-cat corp.) Don't they have more of a claim to it than what their masters are forced by law to give them?

"To him who shows mercy, towards him mercy will be shown."



--------------------
  -I'd rather have a frontal lobotomy than a bottle in front of me

CANADIAN CENTER FOR POLICY ALTERNATIVES

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: carbonhoots]
    #1214100 -

****Even if that were true, would it not be for the greater good if adequate wealth were avaliable publicly for schools, toll-free roads, and hostipals+insurance?****

They call that stealing....

****I say that all personal fortunes depend on many more people than just the person who holds the fortune. ***

just because you say it doesn't make it correct or moral.

****There is a collectivist element in all our social affairs. It takes lots of minimum wage workers who deserve better than there getting in order to generate these fortunes.****

I can't believe you FEEL this way. These businesses you refer to offer the community jobs that require VERY low skill, hence the low pay. If these people are so upset go to their competitor.

****Walmart NEEDS it's cheap labour to be a fat-cat corp.) *****

noone's forcing these people to work there

****Don't they have more of a claim to it than what their masters are forced by law to give them? ****

No, because they don't own the company. I thought this was obvious.




--------------------

America....FUCK YEAH!!!

Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: Innvertigo]
    #1214120 -

noone's forcing these people to work there

There are always enough desperate people in the world to be be taken advantage of if you are a big enough bastard to want to do it. Clearly walmart are.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: Phluck]
    #1214148 -

[quoteBecause they don't need it.]


It doesn't matter if they "need"it or not. It's their money being forcibly taken to fund unconstitutional programs. It belongs to them.

Quote:
but I just don't see the logic in giving rich people more money.


How can you "give" them what is already theirs? Perhaps you should have phrased it.. Why should the government steal any less of their money.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: Phluck]
    #1214169 -

Quote:
"Why should those who pay more not get more tax relief?"

Because they don't need it. It's not "relief", it's just a gift. They're already rich, extremely rich. It's the poor people who are in need of relief. I'm sorry, but I just don't see the logic in giving rich people more money. I don't understand how this helps.


Well judging by this, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FUCK HARD WORK IS LIKE. Those people who are rich WORK THEIR FUCKING ASSES OFF THORUGH High School, College, whatever the fuck afterwords. BASICALLY PPL WHO'VE WORKED THEIR ASS OFF A QTR OF THEIR LIFE TO GET WHERE THEY ARE, and you don't understand how they should keep most of the money that they've worked so hard for? Maybe when taxes get really high and your RICH BOSS isn't making so much of a profit that he'll cut you or you'll get laid off. A tax relief helps the poor as well, I used to make $320 a paycheck but after taxes and social security only came out w/ $290. With that thirty or twenty dollars, I could've paid for a couple of lunches, an extra tank of gas, junk food, good quality guitar strings, a game, or just blow it all on more drugs or drink it to waste or whatever else.
My philosophy is that every penny counts and any tax relief is for the better of the whole. People who are flat broke and finally achieve their financial heaven and you say they don't deserve it. Well my advise to you is if you're so jealous, so it sounds, go work your ass off and you'll become one of the rich. A tax cut on the poor and not the rich is far by THE DUMBEST FUCKING THING I'VE EVER HEARD. THE POOR DOESN'T GIVE JOBS OUT, and if people want jobs then the rich will need a cut as well so they can support another salary. Does that not make sense?

I'm not trying to be a complete dick, but sometimes it comes out like that.
Dilauded

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: Innvertigo]
    #1214178 -

That was full of more classics.

Quote:
I can't believe you FEEL this way. These businesses you refer to offer the community jobs that require VERY low skill, hence the low pay. If these people are so upset go to their competitor.

no one's forcing these people to work there





OK well obviously their competitor is paying the same thing. And yes, there is something forcing people to stay there. They have no other choice. If it were so simple for these people, as you imply, how is it that there are huge segments of human society hopelessly trapped in poverty/slavery.

Look, the masters are to blame for the problems of today. Not the servants. And on that subject, humans seem to naturally fall into the lines of masters and servants. The masters, (capital holders in our economic experience), should be more selfless and benevolent towards their servants. Not greedy and being all rich and stuff while their servants live trying lives.

The economic masters ARE NOT FAIR!

This market creed is kinda like satanism. It preaches self indulgence even if that means austerity for the rest. It's turned greed from a deadly sin into a cardinal virtue!

It's also funny how socialists and capitalist never can agree. Are there any converts out there? From either side? Or is it something there is no being converted away from?


--------------------
  -I'd rather have a frontal lobotomy than a bottle in front of me

CANADIAN CENTER FOR POLICY ALTERNATIVES

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: carbonhoots]
    #1214400 -

Quote:
It's also funny how socialists and capitalist never can agree. Are there any converts out there? From either side? Or is it something there is no being converted away from?


a lot of people during the depression turned socialist

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: carbonhoots]
    #1214467 -

****And yes, there is something forcing people to stay there. They have no other choice*****

The last i checked people can quit any job they want to. They do have a choice for example: Go into the military, go to school (don't give me any BS about not being able to afford it because i was flat broke when i went into college and they were more than happy to give me a loan), work construction (which pays fucking great). They have plenty of choices and if it just comes down to they don't want to work in other fields then they have to deal with the low-skill, low-pay job at walmart.

****how is it that there are huge segments of human society hopelessly trapped in poverty/slavery.*****

Slavery? Do be a fool, that argument goes nowhere.

While i can't speak for everyone of them i can say that a large portion of those that are in that situation are there by choice. Don't tell me that they are all there because wall-mart or a similar industry is not paying them top dollar, because to be quite frank a lot of them aren't worth the high pay because they are low-skilled. This is not to say that all of them are lazy, and unwilling to work but i would dare say a small minority actually cannot do better no matter how much they try.

****Look, the masters are to blame for the problems of today. Not the servants. ****

that's a very naive staement that doesn't need responding to. Grow up.

****humans seem to naturally fall into the lines of masters and servants.****

Only if you look at life like a pesamist. There are a lot of unhappy people on this site. I don't work for anyone, i work with them. If i don't like how i'm being treated i offer my services to the highest bidder.

****Not greedy and being all rich and stuff while their servants live trying lives. ****

Not being rich and stuff? So being rich is wrong? I hope you never own a business....on second thought that would straiten up your outlook on those that make more money than yourself.

****The economic masters ARE NOT FAIR!****

Life is not fair, deal with it. If you have to work twice as hard as the guy next to you then guess what you have to do? You have to work twice as hard.

****This market creed is kinda like satanism. It preaches self indulgence even if that means austerity for the rest. It's turned greed from a deadly sin into a cardinal virtue!*****

The #1 reason people start a business is to make money, not make a social difference.

****It's also funny how socialists and capitalist never can agree.****

It's because capitalists believe in individual rights and socialists don't



--------------------

America....FUCK YEAH!!!

Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: Innvertigo]
    #1214672 -

Quote:
Life is not fair, deal with it. If you have to work twice as hard as the guy next to you then guess what you have to do? You have to work twice as hard.





Well, I'm doing my best to deal with it. But that don't mean I'm not going to not speak about it. As If that's what growing up is...

Yes I expect a fair world, and I'm not the only one. I expect people to be fair to each other. I don't endorse silent compliance towards unfairness.

I do endorse dealing with it.

I understand one can't get a student loan in USA if one has a marijuana conviction. I guess that person should work twice as hard as you and not speak out against it then. Ya right! How should that person deal with it? Speaking is the first step surley...

Quote:
****humans seem to naturally fall into the lines of masters and servants.****

Only if you look at life like a pesamist. There are a lot of unhappy people on this site. I don't work for anyone, i work with them. If i don't like how i'm being treated i offer my services to the highest bidder.





That's not pessimistic. That's the nature of many human realtions. The golden rule is supposed to be invoked by the master, but where it is denied, there is the birthplace of coersive power.

Do you base your aproval of the system on the fact that it's working for you at this moment? More power to you in finding the highest bidder...


--------------------
  -I'd rather have a frontal lobotomy than a bottle in front of me

CANADIAN CENTER FOR POLICY ALTERNATIVES

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: carbonhoots]
    #1214682 -

Quote:
It's also funny how socialists and capitalist never can agree. Are there any converts out there? From either side? Or is it something there is no being converted away from?


If the swing to the right in the last election is an indicator, there are many converts. Well maybe not from socialism but from liberalism. And it's about time.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: carbonhoots]
    #1214761 -

Yes there are a lot of "classics" out there.  And I think logic mandates agreement.

Here's a "classic" of yours:

"To him who shows mercy, towards him mercy will be shown."

I think that is a wonderful quote and I really appreciate your compassion.

Here's another quote from the "hateful" book:

"But you have insulted the poor.  Is it not the rich who are exploiting you?  Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court?"  James 2:6

"Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming upon you.  Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes.  You silver and gold are corroded.  Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire.  You have hoarded wealth in the last days.  Look! The wages you failed to pay the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you.  The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty.  You hve lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence.  You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter.  You have condemned and murdered innocent men, who were not opposing you." James 5:1-6

"The economic masters ARE NOT FAIR!"

True, life isn't fair. :frown:

"This market creed is kinda like satanism. It preaches self indulgence even if that means austerity for the rest. It's turned greed from a deadly sin into a cardinal virtue!"

Yes, absolutely.  It is a shame.  But it doesn't change the fact that what I earn is mine and should belong to me, not the State or it's beneficiaries.

"It's also funny how socialists and capitalist never can agree. Are there any converts out there? From either side? Or is it something there is no being converted away from?"

Yes, I will speak as a convert.  I was converted from thinking the State is my Daddy and should pass out goodies to me that were stolen from other people.  I was once very liberal in my economic principles.

What converted me?  When MY Country decided to take $1,500.00 out of my $3,000.00 check in one week.  This was money stolen from me that I could have used to give to others.  That REALLY pissed me off! :mad:

I disagree with your conclusions but I have to admire your heart. :smile:

Cheers



 

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: ]
    #1214818 -

Quote:
it doesn't change the fact that what I earn is mine and should belong to me, not the State or it's beneficiaries



Of course.

But, how exactly does one legitimately own a hydro-electric dam?

Something's fucked up with the concept of ownership there me thinks...

And as for your 1500.00 tax, it sure wasn't because of the USA's non-existant welfare stae, it was beacause of the 400 billion+ military and the shift of the tax burden from wheathly to middle-class etc. You must have got some kind of return on that too right?


--------------------
  -I'd rather have a frontal lobotomy than a bottle in front of me

CANADIAN CENTER FOR POLICY ALTERNATIVES

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: carbonhoots]
    #1214896 -

I don't think any of these things are easy to solve with fundamental principles like "it's my money, dammit!" or "we need to provide services because it's our moral duty" or whatever.

I also think there are times when the government runs things cheaper and better than privatization ever could and I can give real life examples to prove it.

I wouldn't say that the welfare state is non-existent though. But it is a small portion of the debt.

During the time they were taking that much money from my check Clinton was in office and the amount for military spending was drastically reduced. Remember he cut 1/3 of our military budget.

At the time I got no return because of the way I filed. This was a short-term employment thing where I earned that for just a few short weeks but the government taxed me as if I was making that amount year round. I wasn't. Later after their thievery I changed my filing so that it equaled out in the end. Point is that they did take what wasn't theirs and gave it somewhere else.

I have never gotten over the shock of what they did to my check. Very few would.

I actually had it easy under Clinton. His highest tax bracket was about 38%. FDR's was in the 90's!

As I said these issues are difficult to come to terms with using easy answers about various ideologies. I think some things need to be funded by the government but others do not. I would have to look at each instance separately and study them to make a what I would consider to be a fair determination.

Cheers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: Innvertigo]
    #1215559 -

Exactly, thank god you have a brain.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: ]
    #1215580 -

Quote:
During the time they were taking that much money from my check Clinton was in office and the amount for military spending was drastically reduced. Remember he cut 1/3 of our military budget.



I remember.  :mad:  Don't forget cutting our intelligence funds in half.

Quote:
I have never gotten over the shock of what they did to my check. Very few would.


I havn't, my dad hasn't, my boss hasn't...


I'm curious, what're some examples of government funded programs that you have in mind???


Dilauded

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: Dilauded]
    #1215752 -

Don't forget cutting our intelligence funds in half.

Corporate welfare increased more massively under Clinton than the days of Reagan tho.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: Xlea321]
    #1215834 -

Corporate Welfare is a bit of a broad subject.
Could you be more specific?

Edited by Dilauded (01/13/03 07:12 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: Dilauded]
    #1216107 -

He has gone into this deeper in the thread....
http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=Forum14&Number=1178431&page=&view=&sb=5&o=&fpart=1&vc=1


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #1216111 -

And what's the higher Corporate Welfare during Clinton than Reagan have to do with the CIA's funding getting cut???????

Alex123???????????????????????????????????????????????

Edited by Dilauded (01/13/03 10:46 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: Dilauded]
    #1216132 -

That would be a question better asked of he who made it.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: Evolving]
    #1217387 -

Quote:
Quote:
however if the goal is economic stimulous, should not the money be given to the people who will spend it? As one's income goes up, their average propensity to consume goes down, increasing thier average propensity to save. Ie: tax breaks for the rich do less for the economy than tax breaks for middle and lower class families.


You are operating under a fallacy in economic thought. Money put into saving can quite often be better for the overall economy than just spending it outright. If someone invests money into some sort of interest bearing instrument, that money is actually being lent or used for something (it's not just sitting in a mattress or a bank vault). The user of this money spends it with the expectations of higher earning which will offset the cost of borrowing (the interest paid). In the case of business borrowing, this money can be used to hire employees or buy machinery which the borrower believes will improve his total profit by increasing his profit margin, increasing his production or both. The employees or the producer of the machinery will in turn spend the money in a manner which will also pay wages, buy goods or invest in capital.


What he writes is not a fallacy at all: it is a theory, just as what you have written is also a THEORY. Your particular theory goes by a number of names: supply-side economics, "trickle down" theory, or, less kindly, "voodoo economics."

Supply-side economics makes sense when you have inadequate production and excess demand. In such a case, every additional penny that can be invested in production to meet demand will result in economic growth. This is assuming, of course, that the wealthy will invest their money in their own country. This is not guaranteed. Capital tends to seek the highest return, and if that highest return happens to be overseas at the moment, the domestic economy suffers.

The problem with the United States economy (and most other developed industrialized nations) is not underproduction, however, it is OVERproduction. Did you notice this past Christmas that auto companies were offering big discounts and leases at 0% interest with no down payment and no payments for a year? They sold a large number of cars that way, but their profit margins took a big hit. They went ahead and did it anyway because their fixed production costs are so high that scaling back production is actually MORE expensive than selling cars so cheap that they're practically selling them at cost. So yeah, they sold a lot of cars this past Christmas season, but their bottom lines are far from healthy, and the shit is really going to hit the fan when all of the potential car buyers have already bought their new cars and very few buyers are left. When that happens, they're going to have scale back production anyway and take a financial hit accordingly. A fresh influx of investment capital may save them from big "losses" on paper, but it does nothing to help the economy as whole, really.

The argument about the "fairness" of greater tax burdens for the wealthy is a completely different issue, one that has been debated back and forth ad nauseam in this thread and elsewhere. What I am addressing here is the efficacy of this particular tax cut in stimulating and improving the economy. In this particular instance, the theory that I Fart presents is more germane than the one you do. Your use of the word "fallacy" implies that supply-side economics is correct in all cases and demand-based economics is always wrong. This is absolutely incorrect. The correctness of either approach is contingent upon the present circumstances. This is the difference between real economic understanding and simple ideology.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: EchoVortex]
    #1217768 -

Quote:
What he writes is not a fallacy at all: it is a theory, just as what you have written is also a THEORY. Your particular theory goes by a number of names: supply-side economics, "trickle down" theory, or, less kindly, "voodoo economics."


Sorry, you are wrong about what I wrote. It is not supply side economics, trickle down theory or voodoo economics. Merely because you decide to label certain economic thought with disparaging leftists rhetoric does not invalidate it. Please read my words and notice what I bold, "Money put into saving can quite often be better for the overall economy than just spending it outright." Notice that I didn't state "will be better" or "always is better" but was pointing other possiblities when taxpayers are allowed to keep more of what they earn instead of having the fruits of their labor confiscated by the state. This is the difference between real economic understanding and simple ideology, humans make billions or individual economic choices based on their individual perspectives. Planning by any 'experts' is doomed to come up short of expectations due to the inherent lack of knowledge of all these perspectives.

Savings is very important for individuals and economies as a whole to weather downturns in economic cycles. Without capital reserves, families and business are in less favorable positions to respond effectively to reductions in income. It is foolish for anyone to only spend for today with no thought of the future or being prepared for possible rough times. When economic conditions improve, having savings to draw on helps businesses to more quickly hire more people or invest in capital improvements in response to market opportunities. Would you deny this?

I am well aware of the problems of over production and the resulting recessions and depressions which can follow. Some would argue the the Fed's loose money policies greatly contributed to this over production by flooding the country with money via easy credit, contributing to over spending in unrealistic anticipation of never ending increases in demand (because interest rates were/are so low and credit was easy to get) as well as bidding up the stock market into a bubble. Spend today and pay tomorrow is the achilles heel of consumerism and our fractional reserve/fiat money system. It has put us in a precarious economic position, we are ill prepared for inevitable economic cycles.


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: Evolving]
    #1218233 -

Notice that I didn't state "will be better" or "always is better" but was pointing other possiblities when taxpayers are allowed to keep more of what they earn instead of having the fruits of their labor confiscated by the state.

I'm not against a tax cut, I simply believe a greater portion of it should have gone to middle and lower income households.  They are RELATIVELY more likely to either a) spend it, and thereby boost demand or b) put it in the bank and/or invest it domestically.  Of course, wealthy households will also spend some of their added disposbale income and invest some of it domestically, but they are also RELATIVELY more likely than middle and lower income households to a) invest it abroad to "weather the storm" of the US economic downturn or b) squander it on speculation since it is purely disposable anyway

Planning by any 'experts' is doomed to come up short of expectations due to the inherent lack of knowledge of all these perspectives.

Which planning exactly are you referring to?  Some economic planning has averted disaster, other economic planning has created disaster.  That all depends on the perpicacity of the planning.

Savings is very important for individuals and economies as a whole to weather downturns in economic cycles. Without capital reserves, families and business are in less favorable positions to respond effectively to reductions in income. It is foolish for anyone to only spend for today with no thought of the future or being prepared for possible rough times. When economic conditions improve, having savings to draw on helps businesses to more quickly hire more people or invest in capital improvements in response to market opportunities. Would you deny this?

Not at all.  Where did I ever disparage saving?  But during economic downturns demand and consumption are necessary to revitalize the economy.  Saving is something you should do when times are good, so that you have money to spend when times are bad.  But the fact is that wealthy households are more likely to ALREADY have considerable savings, whereas middle and lower income households are less likely.  This is not because they are more "irresponsible" (although that is surely the case with some of them) but because they have less disposable income to work with.

I am well aware of the problems of over production and the resulting recessions and depressions which can follow. Some would argue the the Fed's loose money policies greatly contributed to this over production by flooding the country with money via easy credit, contributing to over spending in unrealistic anticipation of never ending increases in demand (because interest rates were/are so low and credit was easy to get) as well as bidding up the stock market into a bubble.

Oh, so now you're saying that industries have TOO MUCH money to play with? 
Well make up your mind, Evolving, which is it?  You were saying before that tax breaks for the wealthy are good because the wealthy can then invest that money in industry.  But if monetary policy is so loose, then a dearth of easy money for capital investments can't be the problem, now can it?  Logical conclusion: the problem is a lack of demand.  How to increase demand?  Put more money into the hands of those who will actually consume instead of investing, shipping money abroad, or speculating--in other words, middle and lower income households.  Thanks for proving my point for me!  :wink: 

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: Evolving]
    #1218490 -

Oh, and by the way, it's a little bit difficult to accept the conclusions of somebody who has to find a boogyman for everything, and the boogyman is always the same. For you and other libertarians, the root of all evil is government. You don't need to remind me. But that kind of thinking really reaches epically silly proportions when you make statements like:

Some would argue the the Fed's loose money policies greatly contributed to this over production by flooding the country with money via easy credit, contributing to over spending in unrealistic anticipation of never ending increases in demand (because interest rates were/are so low and credit was easy to get) as well as bidding up the stock market into a bubble.

Offering low interest rates is NOT the same thing as forcing people to borrow your money and then build unnecessary production facilities with it. It is the responsibility of the companies themselves to make accurate and realistic projections about what demand for their products is going to be. At least with low interest rates companies have the OPTION to take the money if they need it or leave it if they don't. Why should the government make that decision FOR THEM by prohibitively raising interest rates? Besides, raising prime lending rates would have a host of negative effects on the economy. Fewer people would be able to buy new homes, new cars, start new businesses, etc. It would be economic suicide.

The blame game just doesn't work. Companies make mistakes sometimes and do things right sometimes. The same goes for government. We all muddle through somehow. Blaming government for every single thing that goes wrong with the economy (or the world for that matter) is fine for internet forums, but it is too simplistic to be of any use for people who have to make decisions with real consequences.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: EchoVortex]
    #1218581 -

Quote:
I'm not against a tax cut, I simply believe a greater portion of it should have gone to middle and lower income households.


I believe that everyone is entitle to a tax cut, up to what they pay into the system. I hold no grudge against the wealthy for having earned more than me or the average taxpayer.

Quote:
wealthy households ... are also RELATIVELY more likely than middle and lower income households to a) invest it abroad to "weather the storm" of the US economic downturn or b) squander it on speculation since it is purely disposable anyway


I'm not agreeing that this is true, I don't know that it is or isn't, but so what? It's their money, and as far as investing abroad - the world's economies are more and more interdependant... and what do you have against people in other countries benefitting from foreign investments, do they not count because they aren't Americans?

Quote:
Which planning exactly are you referring to?


Economic planning of governments, central planning. I have no qualms with private individuals planning for their economic well being.

Quote:
Where did I ever disparage saving?


The original post of I_Fart_Blue's which you were defending was relating to savings.

Quote:
But during economic downturns demand and consumption are necessary to revitalize the economy.


What is really necessary is for business to adjust their inventory and production to be more in line with demand. Simply increasing consumption without addressing fundamentals will only offer short term relief and will put off the inevitable, possibly making adjustments more painful. This is where I sharply disagree with the Bush administration, when they were telling people to go out and spend money to get the economy going. Businesses have to change their behavior to reflect the changing marketplace, government should take no actions which will put off the needed changes in business behavior. One need only to look at the monetary policies of Japan over the last decade to see that easy credit does not necessarily 'jump start' the economy.

Quote:
Well make up your mind, Evolving, which is it? You were saying before that tax breaks for the wealthy are good because the wealthy can then invest that money in industry. But if monetary policy is so loose, then a dearth of easy money for capital investments can't be the problem, now can it?


There is a fundamental difference between having money to spend because of easy credit versus spending money from savings or earnings. I am against the federal reserve system and fiat money, they are used to debase the currency which erodes savings and purchasing power through monetary inflation. Monetary inflation is in effect, a hidden tax that affects everybody, if the money supply is inflated by 50%, the poor person with only $10 in his pocket will see his buying power decreased by 33% and his $10 will only buy what $6.66 used to buy. When the government or the federal reserve inflate the money supply, they influence behavoir towards consumption and speculation instead of investment.

Quote:
the problem is a lack of demand. How to increase demand?


Demand is only so elastic, if everybody has enough widgets to satisfy themselves, giving them more money will not increase demand for widgets. In this instance, what is necessary is for the producers to modify their behavior.

Quote:
Put more money into the hands of those who will actually consume instead of investing, shipping money abroad, or speculating--in other words, middle and lower income households.


Even money that is invested is spent by someone, again it is not just put in a mattress nor does it just sit in a bank vault collecting dust.

The bottom line is this. You, I or any other taxpayers are not government property and we do not exists so that others may milk us like cows, we are not a public resource. I am not wealthy, but I am not consumed with envy like collectivists. The wealthy are not a means to my end. If a person has gained wealth through honest means, he should not be punished for his success by taking a greater portion of his wealth than is taken from someone who earns less.

Collectivists look upon successful people as a resource to be plundered. Self confident individuals look upon them as people to be learned from. I have no more right to take a wealthy man's earnings by proxy through the government than I do by breaking into his house and stealing his earning from his wallet while he sleeps.


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.

Edited by Evolving (01/14/03 04:10 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: Evolving]
    #1218746 -

Here's some more on the original subject...

Bush's tax cut plan: The economics of the American plutocracy
By Patrick Martin
8 January 2003


The tax cut plan announced Tuesday by President Bush is a transparent scheme to plunder the federal treasury and enrich the financial oligarchy. Nearly all of the $664 billion in tax cuts go to the top income brackets, while working class families, and especially the poor and unemployed, will receive little or nothing.

The centerpiece of Bush's program is the abolition of all taxation of corporate dividends, income that goes almost entirely by the wealthiest individuals in America. This huge tax break for the wealthy accounts for more than half the total, $364 billion over ten years.

In calling for the total elimination of the tax on dividends, Bush went beyond earlier predictions by the pundits and the expectations of even his most fervent corporate backers. Prior to the new year it was reported that Bush would call for a reduction in the tax by as much as 50 percent, itself a massive windfall for the rich that would have been considered politically unthinkable even a few years ago.

The ending of dividend taxation will have no effect on 401(k) accounts, because dividends paid to these retirement accounts are already non-taxable. The benefit will go entirely to those who receive dividends as direct income disproportionately the rich. Approximately half of the $364 billion will go to the top one percent of Americans, those with incomes of $350,000 a year or more. Some 65 percent will go to the top ten percent. The bottom 80 percent of the population, in income terms, gets less than 10 percent of the tax break.

According to the calculations of the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research group, people with incomes over $316,895 will save an average of $13,243 on their taxes. People earning $21,350 will save an average of $47, less than $5 a year.

The other elements of the Bush tax cut plan also favor the rich, although less flagrantly than the abolition of taxes on dividends. These include:

* Accelerating tax rate cuts scheduled for 2004 and 2006, making them effective this year. The estimated cost is $114 billion.

* An immediate boost in the child tax credit from $600 to $1,000, costing $99 billion.

* Accelerating the phase-out of the so-called marriage penalty, which affects upper-middle-class families with two incomes. The cost is $58 billion.

According to one study, 64 percent of the benefits from moving up the tax rate cuts scheduled for 2004 will go to the wealthiest 5 percent of the population, while only 7.7 percent goes to the bottom 80 percent. 70 percent of the benefits from accelerating the planned 2006 tax cuts will go to the top 5 percent of taxpayers, and only 6.4 percent to the lowest four-fifths. Only the increase in the child tax credit provides the bulk of its benefits to middle-income families.

Bush also called on Congress to make permanent the $1.35 trillion in tax cuts enacted in 2001, now scheduled to expire in 2010. This would include permanent abolition of the estate tax, which affects only those who inherit estates of $1 million or more.

If Bush succeeds in winning congressional approval of his latest tax cut plan and there is little doubt that he will get most, if not all, of his proposed windfalls for the rich, given the bipartisan support for the 2001 cuts and the prostration of the Democrats his administration will have largely eliminated taxation of the wealthy in the United States in the space of two years.

The White House and congressional Republicans seek to preempt criticism of the tax cut as a massive handout to the rich by accusing opponents of carrying out “class warfare.” Their methods resemble those of a hold-up man who shouts “stop thief” as he flees the scene of the crime. Robbing the poor to pay the rich is perfectly legitimate, the Bush administration maintains, but it is “class warfare” to tell the poor they are being robbed.

The most immediate and direct beneficiaries of Bush’s plan are the stock market and the largest Wall Street investers and speculators—precisely those layers of the ruling elite that accumulated the most massive fortunes in the stock market frenzy of the 1990s. That his scheme for “economic growth” at a time of rising unemployment and growing social distress is patently aimed, above all, at boosting share values on the stock market is highly significant.

It underscores the social character of his government as the political incarnation of the most predatory and parasitic sections of the financial oligarchy. It reflects, moreover, the increasingly decadent character of American capitalism as a whole, in which profit-making and the private accumulation of wealth by the privileged few are increasingly separated from the production process, and rely instead on swindling, accounting fraud and outright theft.

Leading corporate spokesmen and even some within the Bush administration hardly bothered to conceal the greed and self-interest that fueled their delight at the tax plan. They were all but salivating and rubbing their hands in anticipation of another massive diversion of social assets into their personal and corporate bank accounts.

R. Glenn Hubbard, chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, suggested that the elimination of taxes on dividends could lift stock prices by 20 percent. Kevin Hasset, an economist at the right-wing American Enterprise Institute, said he was surprised and happy and added, This will provide a lot of juice to the market.

Jerry Jasinowski, president of the National Association of Manufacturers, said, The animal spirits of business have been depressed. There is no question but that the impact of this on confidence will be immediate. The first thing that chief executives do when they get up in the morning is check the price of their stock.


The politics of tax-cutting

The Bush administration first indicated that a significant tax-cut bill would be introduced just after the November 5 election, in which the Republican Party gained control of both houses of Congress. At the time the size of the cut was pegged at $150 billion. By Christmas, the size of the cut was estimated at $300 billion, including a 50 percent cut in the tax on dividends.

On January 3, White House aides told the press that the administration would propose complete elimination of the dividend tax as part of a package costing $500-$600 billion. When Bush finally made his speech January 7 to the Economic Club of Chicago, the cost had ballooned to $674 billion $10 billion in additional spending, in the form of subsidies to crisis-stricken state governments, and the balance going to tax cuts for the wealthy.

One Senate Republican tax aide described the political atmosphere in the White House as officials discussed whether to accelerate the child tax credit or the phase-out of the marriage penalty, and then decided to do both. They've taken steroids, he told the Washington Post.

This near-frenzy represents a combination of greed and fear. The Bush administration not only wishes to enrich the wealthy, it also is looking desperately for a way to revive the stock market and prevent a financial calamity that would undermine it both internationally and at home.

The scale of the tax cut grew as the Bush administration became increasingly troubled about future financial prospects, and the impotence of the Democratic Party became ever more obvious. Nothing more than token opposition can be expected from the congressional Democrats, even though they could easily tie up and block the legislation in the Senate, where they hold 48 of 100 seats.

Congressional Democratic spokesmen have focused most of their criticism on the tax plan's fiscal irresponsibility, not its class character. Their alternative plan, introduced the day before Bush's speech, would provide only a rebate of $300 for individual workers or $600 for two-income families, and an extension of unemployment benefits, but no increase in federal spending to create jobs.

The administration is employing lies and double-talk to sell its package to the public. Bush is presenting a program tailor-made for the coupon-clipping elite as a growth and jobs plan to aid working people. The administration claimed that 92 million taxpayers would benefit from the tax cuts and receive an average reduction of $1,083, although this figure combines the windfall going to the millionaires and the pittance going to the vast majority of working people. (If one millionaire gets $45,000 and 40 workers get $50 apiece, the average of their combined tax breaks approximates the administration figure.)

In pursuit of this massive handout to the rich, the most vulnerable sections of the working class are being held hostage. That is the meaning of Bush's decision to allow extended unemployment benefits to expire December 28 for nearly 800,000 jobless with the total rising to over 1.5 million by mid-February. The Bush administration now proposes to renew the extension of unemployment benefits, but only if Congress ties the measure to the passage of hundreds of billions in new tax breaks for the privileged.

The White House aims to push the legislation through Congress under conditions where it will be overshadowed by impending war with Iraq, and the public caught off guard. This is more than a politically fortuitous bit of timing. Bush's war policy and his tax policy are of one piece: both involve the looting of vast resources the oil of Iraq, the American treasury for the benefit of the American plutocracy


--------------------
  -I'd rather have a frontal lobotomy than a bottle in front of me

CANADIAN CENTER FOR POLICY ALTERNATIVES

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: carbonhoots]
    #1218773 -

Ok, you win.

Death by length of post.

*sigh*

Just kidding.

Take care, Bro seriously

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: carbonhoots]
    #1218885 -

Quote:
blah blah blah...In pursuit of this massive handout to the rich, the most vulnerable sections of the working class are being held hostage.... blah blah blah


Since when is allowing someone to keep their money a handout? Come on, use some LOGIC. If instead of taking 38% of your money, I take 37% - am I giving you a handout? You are operating under the unstated assumption that all wealth generated belongs to the state, and that in fact that all individuals are government property and any money they earn belongs to the state.

Sorry, but I don't believe in slavery to any state or any individual. I am very sorry that you do.


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: Evolving]
    #1219318 -

Evolving...It's not 'the state' as in some Orwelian or Comunist dictatorship nightmare. It's the democratic government. You must believe in the concept of, of the people, by the people, for the people. Us. What's best for us as a whole. Not just Joe Zillionaire. Of course the individual must be respescted but the lengths it's gone to now-a-days??

COME ON!!!! The billionaires have no legitimate claim to that kind of fortune. It was earned by the blood sweat and tears of their workers.

Now, if you earn your income from 'capital', your not taxed. If you earn your income from labour, your taxed. If that ain't class warfare, I don't know what is! Even if we all had enough disposable income to 'invest', there would still be need for workers. We can't all be capitalists...why aren't workers included in the formula?





--------------------
  -I'd rather have a frontal lobotomy than a bottle in front of me

CANADIAN CENTER FOR POLICY ALTERNATIVES

Edited by carbonhoots (01/14/03 07:25 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: carbonhoots]
    #1219331 -

Quote:
It was earned by the blood sweat and tears of their workers.


And who's the brain's behind their work????

Knowledge=Power,
Dilauded

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: carbonhoots]
    #1219339 -

Quote:
COME ON!!!! The billionaires have no legitimate claim to that kind of fortune. It was earned by the blood sweat and tears of their workers.

Companies are similar to football teams, you can have all the talent in the world, but if the players aren't coached properly, you won't win. The billionaires are usually rich because they were great "coaches" (excluding those who inherited their fourtunes, these are just lucky bitches that don't deserve it, but that's a different story) and they were able to organize their company with good leadership skills and organizational vision.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that anyone can start up a business, but not everyone can be successful.


--------------------
Re-Defeat Bush in '04

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: Skikid16]
    #1219356 -

Quote:
Quote:
COME ON!!!! The billionaires have no legitimate claim to that kind of fortune. It was earned by the blood sweat and tears of their workers.

Companies are similar to football teams, you can have all the talent in the world, but if the players aren't coached properly, you won't win. The billionaires are usually rich because they were great "coaches" (excluding those who inherited their fourtunes, these are just lucky bitches that don't deserve it, but that's a different story) and they were able to organize their company with good leadership skills and organizational vision.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that anyone can start up a business, but not everyone can be successful.


That's a good way to put it.

Nice metaphor,
Dilauded

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: Dilauded]
    #1219366 -

Thanks.  :grin: 


--------------------
Re-Defeat Bush in '04

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: Skikid16]
    #1219523 -

wow....we agree


--------------------

America....FUCK YEAH!!!

Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: Skikid16]
    #1219868 -

The billionaires are usually rich because they were great "coaches"

Fifty years ago maybe. These days if you run the company into the ground you still get a golden handshake worth millions.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: carbonhoots]
    #1219947 -

Quote:
It's not 'the state' as in some Orwelian or Comunist dictatorship nightmare. It's the democratic government


An unfettered democracy is nothing but tyranny of the majority. Should I happier that 51% of the people who vote decide to deprive me of my liberty as opposed to one individual depriving me of my liberty?

Quote:
You must believe in the concept of, of the people, by the people, for the people.


Instead of being accused of plagiarism, I give you this,
'I heartily accept the motto, "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe--"That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which the will have.'
- Henry David Thoreau (Civil Disobedience)

Quote:
What's best for us as a whole.


Who defines 'what's best for us as a whole?'

Quote:
COME ON!!!! The billionaires have no legitimate claim to that kind of fortune. It was earned by the blood sweat and tears of their workers.


COME ON!!! Employees voluntarily accept employment with the terms offered by the employer, they are free to reject the agreement before starting and are free to leave at any time. COME ON!!! The owners/founders/managers of business are the ones who come up with ideas and develope them, invest capital, time and effort, then direct and plan what activities are necessary to make a business successful. Without them, the employees wouldn't even have the opportunity to get a job with the company. If the workers are the only source of labor, how is it that they cannot start their own business and reap the benefits of the risk, effort, creativity and planning put in just like those that you despise?

Quote:
Now, if you earn your income from 'capital', your not taxed.


In the U.S. you are.

Quote:
Even if we all had enough disposable income to 'invest', there would still be need for workers.


Agreed, that is what owners and managers of businees are as well, THEY WORK. If they just sat idle and didn't tend to things, they would eventually lose their business, the employees would lose their jobs, and the collectivists would have no one to leech off of. Sort of how communist countries go down the shitter.

Quote:
We can't all be capitalists...why aren't workers included in the formula?


We CAN all be capitalists, and most of us are. If a man buys work boots to use at his job, THAT IS capital. If a man buys a car to get him to and from work, THAT IS capital. If a man puts a portion of his earning in a bank account to accumulate for future purposes, THAT IS capital. Unless you exists on a subsistence level, your are to some degree a capitalist. The key to material improvement is to change your outlook from victimhood to one of recognizing the vast opportunities available if you are to conciously take charge of your own life and not rely on others to improve your material existence.


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: Evolving]
    #1220672 -

Your last reply to me veers wildly from the topic at hand, which is the economic consequences of the latest Bush tax cut.

I believe that everyone is entitle to a tax cut, up to what they pay into the system. I hold no grudge against the wealthy for having earned more than me or the average taxpayer.

Huh? Who ever said anything about grudges? Don't let your imagination get away with you.

I'm not agreeing that this is true, I don't know that it is or isn't, but so what? It's their money, and as far as investing abroad - the world's economies are more and more interdependant... and what do you have against people in other countries benefitting from foreign investments, do they not count because they aren't Americans?

I have nothing against people in other countries benefitting from foreign investment. The issue that I thought we were trying to address, however, is whether this will revitalize the US economy .

What is really necessary is for business to adjust their inventory and production to be more in line with demand. Simply increasing consumption without addressing fundamentals will only offer short term relief and will put off the inevitable, possibly making adjustments more painful. This is where I sharply disagree with the Bush administration, when they were telling people to go out and spend money to get the economy going. Businesses have to change their behavior to reflect the changing marketplace, government should take no actions which will put off the needed changes in business behavior.

I just don't get it. You're profoundly against government, but this statement implies that government is somehow responsible for the failings of individual businesses, and so government should hold the hands of business and help them change their behavior.

One need only to look at the monetary policies of Japan over the last decade to see that easy credit does not necessarily 'jump start' the economy.

Quite true. Another problem with Japan is that consumers refuse to buy anything. They have extensive savings (over one trillion dollars, in fact) but they're in a vicious circle where don't spend, the economy keeps contracting, so they keep refusing to spend.

There is a fundamental difference between having money to spend because of easy credit versus spending money from savings or earnings. I am against the federal reserve system and fiat money, they are used to debase the currency which erodes savings and purchasing power through monetary inflation. Monetary inflation is in effect, a hidden tax that affects everybody, if the money supply is inflated by 50%, the poor person with only $10 in his pocket will see his buying power decreased by 33% and his $10 will only buy what $6.66 used to buy. When the government or the federal reserve inflate the money supply, they influence behavoir towards consumption and speculation instead of investment.

Do you honestly think the government deliberately inflates the money supply to screw people over? What would be the point of that? By the way, inflation is very low in the United States at present. In fact, there is currently a very real danger of deflation . Check out Paul Krugman's Op-ed on deflation in the New York Times. Japan is also currently in a deflationary spiral.

I am not wealthy, but I am not consumed with envy like collectivists.

You know, I was honestly hoping we could have kept this discussion simply at the level of economics and the pros and cons of the latest Bush stimulus package. But nooooooo, you had to come in with this lame bit of ad hominem amateur psychoanalysis. I see, so people who are left of center think the way they do because they are "CONSUMED WITH ENVY" of the wealthy. News flash: many of the people in the top tax brackets are themselves left of center. Professionals (lawyers, doctors, professors, teachers, architects, etc.) tend to lean left and their incomes are far above average. People in the entertainment industry also lean left, and a lot of them are stinking rich. Those of us who are against massive gulfs of income inequality think the way we do because we honestly believe that such massive inequality is bad for everybody, for society as a whole, and will eventually lead to the collapse of the very system which helped generate all of that wealth in the first place. A modicum of equality (and equal opportunity) is precisely what keeps things like class war from flaring up in the first place.

Collectivists look upon successful people as a resource to be plundered. Self confident individuals look upon them as people to be learned from. I have no more right to take a wealthy man's earnings by proxy through the government than I do by breaking into his house and stealing his earning from his wallet while he sleeps.

Good lord, man, the paranoia of this statement is truly hysterical. I have no personal designs on your money or anybody else's. I have never in my life been on the dole and never will. I earn my own money, I am self confident, and I pay my taxes just like everyone else. I am not "consumed with envy" for those who are wealthier than I am. I have enough money to meet my needs and furthermore, I do not equate wealth with happiness so there is no need for me to envy complete strangers who may have a few more zeroes in their bank accounts but who may also be miserable in their lives when compared to me.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: Innvertigo]
    #1221771 -

Quote:
wow....we agree 

Scary, eh? :grin:


--------------------
Re-Defeat Bush in '04

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: EchoVortex]
    #1222084 -

Quote:
Your last reply to me veers wildly from the topic at hand


That's the way things go in these threads, but then you know that already.

Quote:
Huh? Who ever said anything about grudges?


I did... Duh!

Quote:
I just don't get it. You're profoundly against government, but this statement implies that government is somehow responsible for the failings of individual businesses, and so government should hold the hands of business and help them change their behavior.


You are right, you obviously don't get it. By manipulating credit in attempt to help out the business climate the government provides incentives to certain kinds of behavior at the expense of others. I never implied that 'government should hold the hands of business and help them change their behavior.' I am saying in essence that the government should butt out.

Quote:
Do you honestly think the government deliberately inflates the money supply to screw people over? What would be the point of that?


Their stated intention is not 'to screw people over,' but that is the end result. The point of inflating the money supply is to hide government confiscation of wealth by avoiding a direct tax. Debasement of currency is a centuries old trick. The term comes from the fact that unscrupulous people would decrease the percentage of base metals (gold, silver) in coins and replace it with cheaper metal while continuing to trade the currency to the unsuspecting public at the old value. With the invention and widespread use of paper money (and now digital money), all that's necessary is to print up more paper or add more zeroes to some ledgers. The first ones to spend the new paper (or digital) money receive full buying power that existed before they started pumping the extra currency into the system. As the extra currency works it's way through the economy, prices start to rise in response to the inflation in the money supply.

Quote:
inflation is very low in the United States at present.


I assume you are referring to a rise in prices which can be a result of monetary inflation which is what I am referring to. In certain sectors there is a rise in prices, the housing market is a notable exception. The bubble from the stock market appears to have been moving to real estate.

Quote:
Good lord, man, the paranoia of this statement is truly hysterical.


I appear to have hit a nerve. There is no paranoia nor hysteria in my statements. If you or any others believe people should be given handouts, put YOUR money where YOUR mouth is. Show the strength of your convictions by spending YOUR money. It is very easy to be compassionate with someone else's earning. I find it immoral to use the government as a tool to confiscate another person's property, particularly taking a greater percentage of his wealth than others just because the victim happens to be good at making money.


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: Evolving]
    #1224463 -

I am saying in essence that the government should butt out.

Yes, yes, I know, dismantle the entire Federal Reserve system. Good luck.

Their stated intention is not 'to screw people over,' but that is the end result. The point of inflating the money supply is to hide government confiscation of wealth by avoiding a direct tax. Debasement of currency is a centuries old trick. The term comes from the fact that unscrupulous people would decrease the percentage of base metals (gold, silver) in coins and replace it with cheaper metal while continuing to trade the currency to the unsuspecting public at the old value. With the invention and widespread use of paper money (and now digital money), all that's necessary is to print up more paper or add more zeroes to some ledgers. The first ones to spend the new paper (or digital) money receive full buying power that existed before they started pumping the extra currency into the system. As the extra currency works it's way through the economy, prices start to rise in response to the inflation in the money supply.

The inflation rates we have now are not terribly worrisome, especially to people who are aware of them and know how to prepare accordingly. Let me guess, you think inflation is so egregious that you want the government to stop printing money right? A few things I would just like to ask you to clarify:

If government doesn't issue currency, who will?
Who and what will back the value of that currency?
Why should I or anyone else accept that currency as legal tender?

I appear to have hit a nerve. There is no paranoia nor hysteria in my statements. If you or any others believe people should be given handouts, put YOUR money where YOUR mouth is. Show the strength of your convictions by spending YOUR money.

You haven't hit any nerves. I DO spend my own money helping those who are less fortunate and by giving to charities. My resources are not infinite, however.

You seem to believe that the majority of money taken by the government as taxes is just handed away to shiftless lazyasses in the form of welfare. This is absolutely incorrect. The majority of government funds goes into things like defense, law enforcement, infrastructure, sewage treatment and garbage collection, etc., things that benefit or protect the common good. Only a very small portion of government funding goes to direct welfare payments, and thanks to welfare reform most welfare is temporary and geared towards helping the recipient find gainful employment

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: EchoVortex]
    #1224634 -

You haven't hit any nerves

This is one of evolvings obsessions. He states something plainly wrong and when you point the error out he thinks he's "hit a nerve"  :smirk:


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5  [ show all ]

Shop: Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Efficiently working to the poor house.
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )		 Innvertigo 6,393 93 02/23/04 03:43 AM
by luvdemshrooms
* Poll: How rich are "The Rich"?
( 1 2 3 all )		 Baby_Hitler 3,612 40 11/20/03 11:34 PM
by RandalFlagg
* you dont get a job from a poor person
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )		 ehud 6,001 84 01/23/03 06:43 PM
by hongomon
* Mommy, where do rich people come from?
( 1 2 3 all )		 Baby_Hitler 4,150 53 01/23/03 11:06 PM
by Innvertigo
* No excuses for poor performance by black & hispanic kids. Baby_Hitler 1,148 12 10/30/03 07:56 PM
by wingnutx
* Bush sneaks through more tax cuts for the rich during war
( 1 2 all )		 EchoVortex 5,031 39 03/26/03 09:09 PM
by luvdemshrooms
* paper money as currency?Inflation? stock HOW?? fake economy?
( 1 2 all )		 kaiowas 3,131 22 08/26/03 08:37 AM
by Anonymous
* Free market harms the poor
( 1 2 all )		 Xlea321 2,531 23 05/21/03 09:15 PM
by iglou

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
7,128 topic views. 1 members, 1 guests and 7 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.1 seconds spending 0.012 seconds on 16 queries.