|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: Mr.Al]
#14319000 - 04/19/11 06:27 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Mr.Al said:
Quote:
zappaisgod said: I addressed your argument, Al. It all depends on what the various rates are. Are you that simple that you don't understand that?
I don't think public debt accumulation has anything to do with the monetary system. Private debt accumulation doesn't either. Interest rates (as savings or borrowings) tend to closely mirror inflation. Without debt interest there is no interest payments on savings. You have to pay somebody to protect your precious rocks. That diminishes you rock wealth so you have to find more rocks to pay your rock guarder.
Liar.
Does it not benefit the debtor to pay back a creditor with a currency that is losing buying power through inflation?
Does this not encourage more inflation?
Well the debtor likes it but the lender doesn't. I would think the lender's position might also have some impact.
By the way, haven't you just reversed your own causality arrow? Previously you said that inflation encourages debt. Now you're saying debt encourages inflation. You don't really have this all that well thought out, do you?
--------------------
|
Mr.Al
Alphabet soup


Registered: 05/27/07
Posts: 5,388
Loc: N.S.A. D.C.
Last seen: 4 months, 18 days
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: zappaisgod]
#14319036 - 04/19/11 06:33 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
It's called the business cycle zap.
I have it very well thought out. The Austrian school of economics shows that the business cycles often end in a sovereign debt crisis.
You don't have an argument do you?
Still can't answer a simple question...
Have you ever looked at A.B.C. theory?
Of course a debtor nation will prefer to pay it's debts with a devalued currency.
OF COURSE THEREIN LIES A SERIOUS MORAL ECONOMIC HAZARD.
You're taking a little while to respond, I hope that you are engaging in actual thought.
I look forward to your post...
Edited by Mr.Al (04/19/11 06:55 PM)
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: Mr.Al]
#14321554 - 04/20/11 04:26 AM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
All this talk about inflation is nonsense without discussing deflation as well. We would all love an economy where there is no inflation and no deflation. However, we know that isn't going to happen, as there are always fluctuations over time. Deflation is much harder to control than inflation. Deflation tends to spiral out of control once it begins. Because of this, we are willing to embrace a small amount of 'easier to control' inflation, as padding, to avoid the possibility of a catastrophic deflationary spiral. As far as I know, short of government price fixing on everything, there is no way around this. In any market that is not 100% regulated, a small amount of inflation is a necessary evil. This isn't some nefarious conspiracy by the lenders to keep the debtors poor, nor is it anything that a gold standard or unregulated free market or voodoo magic are going to fix.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: Mr.Al]
#14322326 - 04/20/11 10:20 AM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Mr.Al said: It's called the business cycle zap.
I have it very well thought out. The Austrian school of economics shows that the business cycles often end in a sovereign debt crisis.
You don't have an argument do you?
Still can't answer a simple question...
Have you ever looked at A.B.C. theory?
Of course a debtor nation will prefer to pay it's debts with a devalued currency.
OF COURSE THEREIN LIES A SERIOUS MORAL ECONOMIC HAZARD.
You're taking a little while to respond, I hope that you are engaging in actual thought.
I look forward to your post...
I went to bed, Al. If a debtor nation pays its debts with a devalued currency it has to pay MORE. Frank fucking Zappa.
The form of currency is utterly irrelevant to deficit government spending. Only the elected and the electorate are relevant. You can borrow rocks, too, it doesn't have to be fiat or electronic squiggles. It never ends, this stupid bullshit from you.
--------------------
|
imachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw



Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that
Last seen: 2 hours, 47 minutes
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: zappaisgod]
#14326719 - 04/21/11 08:09 AM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said: I addressed your argument, Al. It all depends on what the various rates are. Are you that simple that you don't understand that?
I don't think public debt accumulation has anything to do with the monetary system. Private debt accumulation doesn't either. Interest rates (as savings or borrowings) tend to closely mirror inflation. Without debt interest there is no interest payments on savings. You have to pay somebody to protect your precious rocks. That diminishes you rock wealth so you have to find more rocks to pay your rock guarder.
then why the fuck do people keep blaming this whole economical situation on a housing bubble crash.
if what you are saying is true, wouldn't the housing crash simply be a symptom of the larger picture? but then again you say government debt has nothing to do with the larger picture?
i'm confused what ARE you saying? why did this meltdown recession effect so many people? i thought people didn't depend on government debt. I thought I didn't. until this crap.
i mean it's as if capitalism hasn't reached an all time high, but then that is a different argument for a different day. and then again who is argueing
--------------------
I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!
I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk
|
imachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw



Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that
Last seen: 2 hours, 47 minutes
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: Seuss]
#14326734 - 04/21/11 08:18 AM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Seuss said: All this talk about inflation is nonsense without discussing deflation as well. We would all love an economy where there is no inflation and no deflation. However, we know that isn't going to happen, as there are always fluctuations over time. Deflation is much harder to control than inflation. Deflation tends to spiral out of control once it begins. Because of this, we are willing to embrace a small amount of 'easier to control' inflation, as padding, to avoid the possibility of a catastrophic deflationary spiral. As far as I know, short of government price fixing on everything, there is no way around this. In any market that is not 100% regulated, a small amount of inflation is a necessary evil. This isn't some nefarious conspiracy by the lenders to keep the debtors poor, nor is it anything that a gold standard or unregulated free market or voodoo magic are going to fix.
but what do you do if it's fixed so that deflation occurs while a small amount of inflation continues to occur. over time this is disastrous. for some deflation occurs, for everyone else the price keeps going up. this results in people with less money, having to pay higher prices.
how do these things combine, and yet people just walk right past it, and think it's normal, every day.
and i'm not talking about the price of a gallon of milk, changing from $3.00 to $3.50. I'm talking about bigger things, that people can barely afford anymore, but still need, just as much as that milk. like a roof over their heads.
the united states has clearly earned the bill as being the largest capitalist state in the world. we feed the bill gates and donald trumps, while taking in all the immigrants and paying them $2.50 an hour. a lot of people hear stories, that in their country, $2.50 an hour is enough for them to buy 2 houses every year.
well maybe back in africa, but not here in the united states. that's for sure
--------------------
I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!
I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: imachavel]
#14326805 - 04/21/11 08:47 AM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
imachavel said:
Quote:
zappaisgod said: I addressed your argument, Al. It all depends on what the various rates are. Are you that simple that you don't understand that?
I don't think public debt accumulation has anything to do with the monetary system. Private debt accumulation doesn't either. Interest rates (as savings or borrowings) tend to closely mirror inflation. Without debt interest there is no interest payments on savings. You have to pay somebody to protect your precious rocks. That diminishes you rock wealth so you have to find more rocks to pay your rock guarder.
then why the fuck do people keep blaming this whole economical situation on a housing bubble crash.
Because they are simpletons looking for an answer that doesn't involve them giving up on the government tit.Quote:
if what you are saying is true, wouldn't the housing crash simply be a symptom of the larger picture?
The housing boom and the subsequent bust were caused by government meddling in the housing market. Don't forget that a lot of people made a lot of money from the boom and I don't mean the bankers.Quote:
but then again you say government debt has nothing to do with the larger picture?
I don't say that. I say that the form of currency that this guy babbles about all the time is irrelevant. Government debt is usually not a huge deal but look at my sig. It has exploded. The problem with it is that people are scared shitless about how these morons expect to get rid of it. Quote:
i'm confused what ARE you saying? why did this meltdown recession effect so many people? i thought people didn't depend on government debt. I thought I didn't. until this crap.
The recession was caused by bums borrowing money and not paying it back, which led to systemic threat to the banking industry and subsequent chilling of the construction industry. Everything flowed from that. Bums who didn't repay their loans. Government debt was not the cause. Until recently government debt was not in the catastrophic range, it was in the nuisance range. It certainly didn't cause the recession but now it threatens to prolong it through the utterly chilling effect it has on business entities. With Democrat control of half of Congress and an avowed socialist in the White House who won't cut anything and endlessly insists on bleeding the People dry all business people and those of means are curtailing their activity.Quote:
i mean it's as if capitalism hasn't reached an all time high, but then that is a different argument for a different day. and then again who is argueing
I don't know what this is supposed to mean.
--------------------
|
imachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw



Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that
Last seen: 2 hours, 47 minutes
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: zappaisgod]
#14331455 - 04/22/11 02:02 AM (13 years, 30 days ago) |
|
|
ok but what i meant by capitalism is reaching an all time high is, would you prefer to have a republican in the white house who is pro business pro bureaucracy pro capitalist?
we need some balance, the dems have people locking their business, but once again it's capitalism at it's finest. whether it's bush or obama, it's obvious that there is always someone pushing it one way or the other too far, and yet people are too dependent on banks, too dependent on the government etc.
you say the debt went up a trillion when obama came into office. you claim you don't think he inherited this from bush but caused it himself. but think about it, most policies presidents create don't go into effect until a few years into their presidency, when bush came into office it wasn't right away his policies took effect, clinton's policies remained in effect for awhile. then bush's kicked in. how can obama be responsible for an extra trillion if the first year he was in office, almost nothing he did went into effect?
well sure he did the bailouts for 700 billion, but everyone approved that. they said it was an emergency, and that without the bailout most companies would have collapsed and we'd be in a depression right now.
do we know this isn't true? do we know just about any president, including bush, wouldn't have done the same thing? how much of a mess has that bailout really caused?
--------------------
I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!
I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: imachavel]
#14332785 - 04/22/11 10:53 AM (13 years, 30 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
imachavel said: ok but what i meant by capitalism is reaching an all time high is, would you prefer to have a republican in the white house who is pro business pro bureaucracy pro capitalist?Not pro bureaucrat. That isn't capitalism, it's nuisancism.Quote:
we need some balance, the dems have people locking their business, but once again it's capitalism at it's finest. whether it's bush or obama, it's obvious that there is always someone pushing it one way or the other too far, and yet people are too dependent on banks, too dependent on the government etc.
Balance between what and what? We need to throw out the socialists. Period.Quote:
you say the debt went up a trillion when obama came into office. you claim you don't think he inherited this from bush but caused it himself. but think about it, most policies presidents create don't go into effect until a few years into their presidency, when bush came into office it wasn't right away his policies took effect, clinton's policies remained in effect for awhile. then bush's kicked in. how can obama be responsible for an extra trillion if the first year he was in office, almost nothing he did went into effect?
I actually claim it started when the Dems took Congress in '06 and when another Dem took the White House it exploded. Because it was their policies that did it. A trillion dollar stimulus bill that didn't stimulate and absolutely idiotic Health Deform bill. Nobody inherited that shit from Bush. Time to move an and stop blaming W.Quote:
well sure he did the bailouts for 700 billion, but everyone approved that. they said it was an emergency, and that without the bailout most companies would have collapsed and we'd be in a depression right now.
What was approved was bailouts for banks. They have repaid the government with profit. What wasn't approved was auto union bailouts. We will lose on that for sure. The bank bailouts cost nothing. NOTHING!Quote:
do we know this isn't true? do we know just about any president, including bush, wouldn't have done the same thing? how much of a mess has that bailout really caused?
You can rest assured that there would not have been a trillion dollar porkulus and there definitely wouldn't have been the business killing Health Deform and there is little chance that the auto unions would have been bailed out.
You keeping talking President this and President that. There is a more powerful agency involved. It's called Congress and it sets spending. Ever since the Dems took it over in 2006 we have seen an incredibly irresponsible level of spending. Go figure.
--------------------
|
imachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw



Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that
Last seen: 2 hours, 47 minutes
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: zappaisgod]
#14332912 - 04/22/11 11:30 AM (13 years, 30 days ago) |
|
|
am i wrong zappa or does the president have to come up with the bill before congress can approve it? they approve and disprove, but who sets policies.
the dems might be retards, but it's hard for me to believe that you actually think bush had nothing to do with ruining the economy. of course he just approved what everyone wanted. the economy ruined the economy.
so dems took the house in 06, which where things really started going downhill. i'm not saying that's just coincidence, but you really think a trillion debt just 'pops up' in 2 years? why didn't bush disagree with these dem policies, he is the president, he has a lot of power you know?
i really don't believe that. obviously obama is a moron, but i don't think without dems that things would've been 'just fine' with bush.
i'm not saying obama has done any differently, but don't forget that war in the middle east costs 100 billion a year. that's 8 years we were there, none of the debt comes from that?
now how great was it for bush to get involved in iraq, instead of pursueing osama bin laden(or maybe he's dead, but whatever lead they had anyway) into pakistan? sure, invading pakistan is a dumb idea, but then so was invading iraq.
and it cost us to get off track. didn't we invade iraq in 04? that's quite a few years we could've been ELSEWHERE trying to find bin laden or whatever was left of him.
and we found NO weapons of mass destruction. I repeat, JUST ABOUT NONE! aside from a few things that barely the police could use.
--------------------
I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!
I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: imachavel]
#14333912 - 04/22/11 03:23 PM (13 years, 30 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
imachavel said: am i wrong zappa or does the president have to come up with the bill before congress can approve it? they approve and disprove, but who sets policies.
He submits a budget proposal and they hammer itQuote:
the dems might be retards, but it's hard for me to believe that you actually think bush had nothing to do with ruining the economy. of course he just approved what everyone wanted. the economy ruined the economy.
My personal opinion s that the Clinton expansion of the CRA and the role of Fannie and Freddie led to the bust in housing. Also the boom. Don't forget that part.Quote:
so dems took the house in 06, which where things really started going downhill. i'm not saying that's just coincidence, but you really think a trillion debt just 'pops up' in 2 years? why didn't bush disagree with these dem policies, he is the president, he has a lot of power you know?
No it doesn't just "pop up". And Bush would have had to veto budget bills in toto. Theer is no line item veto.
Look specifically at what the Dems did. A near trillion dollar stimulus bill that was totally bullshit and the Health Deform law, which is scaring the living shit out of business people, as are many other Dem favorites, like cap and trade.Quote:
i really don't believe that. obviously obama is a moron, but i don't think without dems that things would've been 'just fine' with bush.
Just fine? Probably not. But Bush is irrelevant. He couldn't be President now anyway. He is also nobody's idea of a conservative. He spearheaded the benighted expansion of medicaid, just for one example of his fucking compassion.Quote:
i'm not saying obama has done any differently, but don't forget that war in the middle east costs 100 billion a year. that's 8 years we were there, none of the debt comes from that?
Do the math. Look at my sig. The deficit was going down until the Dems started spending like drunken sailors even with the wars.Quote:
now how great was it for bush to get involved in iraq, instead of pursueing osama bin laden(or maybe he's dead, but whatever lead they had anyway) into pakistan? sure, invading pakistan is a dumb idea, but then so was invading iraq.
Invading Iraq was most definitely not a dumb idea. In fact, I think it was mandatory. Either treaties and ceasefire agreements mean something or thee is no law. I would rather avoid feckless waffling and present a resolute front that demands respect than be French.Quote:
and it cost us to get off track. didn't we invade iraq in 04? that's quite a few years we could've been ELSEWHERE trying to find bin laden or whatever was left of him.
You are presenting a false choice. There was no less emphasis on finding bin Laden with or without Iraq. I have zero reason to believe that insufficient effort has anything to do with finding bin Laden.Quote:
and we found NO weapons of mass destruction. I repeat, JUST ABOUT NONE! aside from a few things that barely the police could use.
Irrelevant.
--------------------
|
imachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw



Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that
Last seen: 2 hours, 47 minutes
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: zappaisgod]
#14334004 - 04/22/11 03:43 PM (13 years, 30 days ago) |
|
|
finding weapons of mass destruction in iraq was IRRELEVANT?

 here we go again with a long discussion about why it was ok to invade iraq without proper just cause, such as finding weapons of mass destruction. wonder how many times THIS has been brought up.
but i stick with my point, if we said we invaded to take weapons of mass destruction away, and found none, then we were wrong to invade.
everything else you said seems pretty sound. one way or another president or no president we are fucked, the budget is huge, and it's too much, thing are already too expensive for this OTHER bullshit to be piled on top of it, a financial crisis at stake.
i mean geez most people BARELY manage to make enough of a living to actually pay what they have to pay for, barely making enough to compensate at work, and then on top of it probably not really being able to afford a comfortable retirement etc.
idk, we're fucked. if it doesn't get better soon, it'll get worst again. i'm sure people contest that, and say it's getting better. and maybe statistically it is, but i tend to disagree in many ways.
--------------------
I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!
I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk
|
Le_Canard
The Duk Abides


Registered: 05/16/03
Posts: 94,392
Loc: Earthfarm 1
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: zappaisgod]
#14334452 - 04/22/11 05:37 PM (13 years, 30 days ago) |
|
|
Well, the Bush tax cuts didn't help matters much either. Just sayin'...
|
imachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw



Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that
Last seen: 2 hours, 47 minutes
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: Le_Canard]
#14336626 - 04/23/11 01:12 AM (13 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
yeah no shit
zappa doesn't get that
--------------------
I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!
I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk
|
zorbman
blarrr


Registered: 06/04/04
Posts: 5,952
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: imachavel]
#14336762 - 04/23/11 01:47 AM (13 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
Tell me one thing I don't know five years in advance.
This has been coming down the pike for years and woefully underdone. If people knew the true extent of the trouble our fiscal house is in they'd panic. Probably why the media has dribbled out the news over the years.
No one wants to give the truth.
Fortunately, no one wants to know the truth either.
-------------------- “The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.” -- Rudiger Dornbusch
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: zorbman]
#14337059 - 04/23/11 04:29 AM (13 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
> If people knew the true extent of the trouble our fiscal house is in they'd panic.
It is a good thing we have Obama in office to reduce government spending. Change, yes we can!
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: imachavel]
#14337685 - 04/23/11 10:22 AM (13 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
imachavel said: finding weapons of mass destruction in iraq was IRRELEVANT?

 here we go again with a long discussion about why it was ok to invade iraq without proper just cause, such as finding weapons of mass destruction. wonder how many times THIS has been brought up.
Several times and you are still as utterly clueless as ever. Saddam was still not in compliance after over ten years. He was also bribing the UN. It was time. In fact, it was long past time. Even that empty pant cunt Clinton bombed him.Quote:
but i stick with my point, if we said we invaded to take weapons of mass destruction away, and found none, then we were wrong to invade.
Nope. There was a whole long list of reasons given for the invasion, the WMDs being just one. Quote:
everything else you said seems pretty sound. one way or another president or no president we are fucked, the budget is huge, and it's too much, thing are already too expensive for this OTHER bullshit to be piled on top of it, a financial crisis at stake.
i mean geez most people BARELY manage to make enough of a living to actually pay what they have to pay for, barely making enough to compensate at work, and then on top of it probably not really being able to afford a comfortable retirement etc.
idk, we're fucked. if it doesn't get better soon, it'll get worst again. i'm sure people contest that, and say it's getting better. and maybe statistically it is, but i tend to disagree in many ways.
Getting slightly better from terrible shape is inadequate.
--------------------
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: Le_Canard]
#14337699 - 04/23/11 10:26 AM (13 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ToiletDuk said: Well, the Bush tax cuts didn't help matters much either. Just sayin'...
There were no tax cuts. Tax revenue increased. That's a tax hike.
The way to get rid of government deficits is not by increasing anybody's personal deficit. Even if you took ALL of the earnings of the top 5% you still wouldn't get rid of the government deficit. The United States already relies more heavily on the top 10% that even Europe for tax revenue. Half of the population doesn't pay anything. Parasites.
--------------------
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: zappaisgod]
#14338150 - 04/23/11 12:11 PM (13 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
Quote:
ToiletDuk said: Well, the Bush tax cuts didn't help matters much either. Just sayin'...
There were no tax cuts. Tax revenue increased. That's a tax hike.
The way to get rid of government deficits is not by increasing anybody's personal deficit. Even if you took ALL of the earnings of the top 5% you still wouldn't get rid of the government deficit. The United States already relies more heavily on the top 10% that even Europe for tax revenue. Half of the population doesn't pay anything. Parasites.
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2011/04/tax-rates-and-share-of-tax-revenues.html
Quote:
Tax Rates and Share of Tax Revenues from Top 1%
The chart above shows the relationship over time (from 1979 to 2007) between: a) the top marginal income tax rate, and b) the share of total income taxes paid by the top 1% (data). In 1979 the top marginal income tax rate was 70% and 18.3% of the total taxes paid were collected from the top 1% of taxpayers. By 2007 the top tax rate was 35% (half of the 1979 rate), and the tax share of the top 1% had more than doubled to 39.5% (from 18.3% in 1979).
The historical record shows an inverse relationship between the highest marginal income tax rate and the share of taxes collected from "the wealthy." It's a relationship to keep in mind during the current tax policy debate, where Obama wants to increase tax revenues by raising tax rates for "the rich," and Rep. Ryan alternatively suggests a cut in the top marginal rate to stimulate economic growth, which would likely increase tax revenues from the wealthy, and increase overall tax revenue.
--------------------
|
imachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw



Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that
Last seen: 2 hours, 47 minutes
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: zappaisgod]
#14339092 - 04/23/11 03:38 PM (13 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
Quote:
ToiletDuk said: Well, the Bush tax cuts didn't help matters much either. Just sayin'...
There were no tax cuts. Tax revenue increased. That's a tax hike.
The way to get rid of government deficits is not by increasing anybody's personal deficit. Even if you took ALL of the earnings of the top 5% you still wouldn't get rid of the government deficit. The United States already relies more heavily on the top 10% that even Europe for tax revenue. Half of the population doesn't pay anything. Parasites.
do you consider yourself to make enough money to be in the overhand side of the top half of the population? where you would not be considered a parasite?
i don't have the opportunity to pay the amount of money on things that my tax money would matter. this really isn't my fault.
i'm no longer a tune in turn on drop out hippy like i was 10 years ago, that thinks the world would be better if everyone quit their corporate job and only work for themself, that people only maintain their own business. but i'm long aways from thinking this system works.
sometimes the stuff you say makes a lot of sense zappa, quite true taxing a higher percentage to a greater percentage of people who make way less money than anyone considered rich is quite futile. but really, i think since the beginning of bush's leadership things were going downhill and it just hit rock bottom on a almost coincidental note when dems took the house in 06.
think about it, tax cuts or not, when everyone gets even taxes in the united states, the u.s. gets about 7% of every sale or payment made ever, except water and electric bills, then they got 100%, except the money they spend paying workers who work for such companies, and they tax their pay checks as well.
that is quite a lot of money to make. of course it'd make up for a huge spending bill that bush probably introduced, so that no one would notice the huge debt piling up until it was too late. why would they? 100 billion a year? the government almost makes that much in taxes.
screw bush and screw obama. now let's hear a positive note, is there one?
--------------------
I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!
I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk
|
|