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


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: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]
to those that vote based on tax cuts
    #1708117 -

how does it feel to have money be the most important thing in your lives? I bet you all are self centered and greedy.


--------------------
ash dingy donker mo gollyhopper patty popiton rockstop bueno mayo riggedy jig bobber johnathan pattywhacker gogboob t-shirt monkey.

There is such emotion in the distortion.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: to those that vote based on tax cuts [Re: 1stimer]
    #1708127 -

Is money important or not, in your opinion? If not, why do you even post about tax cuts?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: to those that vote based on tax cuts [Re: Rhizoid]
    #1708133 -

im not saying it isnt important. what im saying it is sad that some people view money as more important than anything else in life.


--------------------
ash dingy donker mo gollyhopper patty popiton rockstop bueno mayo riggedy jig bobber johnathan pattywhacker gogboob t-shirt monkey.

There is such emotion in the distortion.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: to those that vote based on tax cuts [Re: 1stimer]
    #1708138 -

what an ignorant assumption. you do realize there are people struggling to get by and our economy is in a slump, right?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: to those that vote based on tax cuts [Re: ]
    #1708140 -

Give me a damn break.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: to those that vote based on tax cuts [Re: 1stimer]
    #1708148 -

OK. But voting for a tax cut is not only about wanting more money, it's also about voting for less money being controlled by politicians. And politicians are seldom good at handling large amounts of money.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: to those that vote based on tax cuts [Re: 1stimer]
    #1708188 -

*snort*

Stooge.


--------------------
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: to those that vote based on tax cuts [Re: ]
    #1708229 -

"you do realize there are people struggling to get by and our economy is in a slump, right"

tax cuts for the wealthy do not help people who are struggling to get by. tax cuts when the economy is in a slump has been proven to hinder an economic recovery. just look at the past 2.5 years.


--------------------
ash dingy donker mo gollyhopper patty popiton rockstop bueno mayo riggedy jig bobber johnathan pattywhacker gogboob t-shirt monkey.

There is such emotion in the distortion.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: to those that vote based on tax cuts [Re: 1stimer]
    #1708294 -

You are so full of crap! You kill me. What tax cuts for the rich? The only people that did will not benefit from the new tax cuts are those who don't pay taxes. These people wonder why they do not get the same tax cut on the EIC. It is because it is a tax cut, not a fucking handout to people who don't pay anyway.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: to those that vote based on tax cuts [Re: shakta]
    #1708329 -

youre off topic. read original post.


--------------------
ash dingy donker mo gollyhopper patty popiton rockstop bueno mayo riggedy jig bobber johnathan pattywhacker gogboob t-shirt monkey.

There is such emotion in the distortion.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: to those that vote based on tax cuts [Re: 1stimer]
    #1708520 -

We are talking about tax cuts and I was responding to your last post directly.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: to those that vote based on tax cuts [Re: shakta]
    #1708585 -

shakta said:
You are so full of crap! You kill me. What tax cuts for the rich? The only people that did will not benefit from the new tax cuts are those who don't pay taxes. These people wonder why they do not get the same tax cut on the EIC. It is because it is a tax cut, not a fucking handout to people who don't pay anyway.

"What tax cuts for the rich"??? You've got to be kidding. Here's a really good summary of who benefits from the tax cuts. 43% of the massive cuts will come from the top 1% of the population.

You like to use big words like "full of crap", to defend your position, but you should start using facts instead. For most people on these boards, that's a much more effective way to make a point.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: to those that vote based on tax cuts [Re: Cornholio]
    #1708598 -

Using simple logic...

if the rich pay most of the taxes, they should get most of the tax cuts.

If the poor pay little to no taxes, they should get little to no tax cut.

And it's well known that because of bullshit like the so called "Earned Income Credit", that many not only pay ZERO in income taxes, they get a check far in excess of the amount the would / should have paid.

Sadly, is was Reagen that signed the EIC into law. It was one of his greatest mistakes.


--------------------
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: to those that vote based on tax cuts [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #1708626 -

That's sound logic lds. But if it were a fair tax cut, I would think everyone should see a similar reduction in taxes. But the top 1% are seeing a 14% reduction in taxes, while most everyone else only sees about a 6% - 7% reduction (see page 4 of the link above, I wasn't able to paste the image here). Doesn't that mean the tax cuts do favor the rich???


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: to those that vote based on tax cuts [Re: shakta]
    #1708644 -

"We are talking about tax cuts and I was responding to your last post directly."
the topic is about how taxs arent the most important thing to consider when one votes. if it is then youre obssessed with money.


--------------------
ash dingy donker mo gollyhopper patty popiton rockstop bueno mayo riggedy jig bobber johnathan pattywhacker gogboob t-shirt monkey.

There is such emotion in the distortion.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: to those that vote based on tax cuts [Re: 1stimer]
    #1708957 -

I think freedom to do what we want with our lives and control our own earnings is extremely important. Tax cuts are simply a way to take power from the government and put it in the hands of the people. I will not vote for any politician who does not think that we deserve to keep the money that we earn.
Taxes take more than just our money. They also take away our time as we spend some of it working for the government. I vote for whoever is more likely to stop taking away our freedoms and that includes our economic freedom.


--------------------
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C.S. Lewis

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: to those that vote based on tax cuts [Re: z@z.com]
    #1709320 -

Remember the difference between a tax cut and a tax deferrment. You might get a few dollars back now,but you'll pay for it later.


--------------------
People think that if you just say the word "hallucinations" it explains everything you want it to explain and eventually whatever it is you can't explain will just go away.It's just a word,it doesn't explain anything...
Douglas Adams

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: to those that vote based on tax cuts [Re: 1stimer]
    #1709370 -

I don't see any point in taxing the poor at all anyway. It just places a disproportionate financial burden on them without generating any significant revenue.

I think in addition to the proposed cuts we should raise the standard deduction to $15,000; about double what it is now.


--------------------
https://www.gofundme.com/f/support-for-renee-goods-wife-and-son

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: to those that vote based on tax cuts [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #1709766 -

Luvedemshrroms wrote:
Using simple logic...
if the rich pay most of the taxes, they should get most of the tax cuts.
If the poor pay little to no taxes, they should get little to no tax cut.


Using simple logic...
Large amounts of money tend to generate income from interest, rent, stock trades and investment banking.
Corporate mergers and superbanks tend to conglomerate large amounts of money (and by extension, power) which is a threat to the prosperity of the poor and the freedom of the individual.

SO-
If the american way is to be preserved from devolving into a communist politburo type of situation (IE- 5% of people controlling 90% of resources), the rich should be taxed disproportionately higher
than poor people.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: to those that vote based on tax cuts [Re: DoctorJ]
    #1709812 -

Good post DoctorJ.  :thumbup: 


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: to those that vote based on tax cuts [Re: DoctorJ]
    #1710988 -

DoctorJ writes:

Large amounts of money tend to generate income from interest, rent, stock trades and investment banking.

True. However, so do small amounts of money. The difference is merely one of degree.

Corporate mergers and superbanks tend to conglomerate large amounts of money...

Usually true.

... (and by extension, power)...

What "power" ? The power to force others?

.... which is a threat to the prosperity of the poor and the freedom of the individual.

Incorrect. The fact that you may have a million or even a billion dollars does nothing whatsoever to prevent me from acquiring the same. It in no way limits my freedom to act.

If the american way is to be preserved from devolving into a communist politburo type of situation (IE- 5% of people controlling 90% of resources)...

That is not a communist politburo type situation in any way shape or form. Don't confuse resources with currency.

... the rich should be taxed disproportionately higher
than poor people.

How does that logically follow? And by the way, the rich are taxed disproportionately higher than the poor.

pinky


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: to those that vote based on tax cuts [Re: Phred]
    #1711656 -

Incorrect. The fact that you may have a million or even a billion dollars does nothing whatsoever to prevent me from acquiring the same. It in no way limits my freedom to act.

it limits your freedom to act and my freedom to choose if he were to
use that accumulated cash-power to buy out all your competitors, even
worse, your suppliers, strangling your business.

death by monopoly.

capitalism, without regulatory intervention, ultimately leads to large
pockets of resources and cash in the hands of few.

DrJ seems to be asserting that part of that regulatory intervention
should be dissuasive taxation of income.


--------------------
All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: to those that vote based on tax cuts [Re: afoaf]
    #1711812 -

afoaf writes:

it limits your freedom to act and my freedom to choose if he were to
use that accumulated cash-power to buy out all your competitors, even
worse, your suppliers, strangling your business.

Note that the people DoctorJ appears to be referring to are "the idle rich" -- those who sit back on their inherited wealth and do nothing but consume. However, for the sake of argument, let's presume he is actually referring to predatory businessmen who actively engineer hostile takeovers and such:

Such a businessman cannot force my competitors to sell their businesses to him, nor can he force my suppliers to stop selling to me. Even if he does manage to persuade some suppliers to stop selling to me, so what? Where is it written that suppliers are not allowed to change their minds? For that matter, where is it written that my decision to run a business requiring supplies obligates anyone to be a supplier?

death by monopoly.

Sigh. Coercive monopolies cannot exist without government intervention. They cannot exist in a free market for any length of time.

capitalism, without regulatory intervention, ultimately leads to large
pockets of resources and cash in the hands of few.

Almost certainly true. So what? The fact that Bill Gates has over 50 billion dollars in no way prevents me from some day having the same.

DrJ seems to be asserting that part of that regulatory intervention
should be dissuasive taxation of income.

I agree that this seems to be what he asserts. I only point out that his reasons for this assertion hold no water.

pinky


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: to those that vote based on tax cuts [Re: Phred]
    #1711837 -

Almost certainly true. So what? The fact that Bill Gates has over 50 billion dollars in no way prevents me from some day having the same.

wouldn't it, though?

that is, if your intentions were to make your 50 million
in the software industry by offering a better web browser
or publishing application.

Coercive monopolies cannot exist without government intervention. They cannot exist in a free market for any length of time.

are you saying that monopolies only exist with government
intervention?

and how exactly can they not exist in a free market for any
length of time?

respectfully, is it a typo or does everything you just said seem
backwards to me?


--------------------
All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: to those that vote based on tax cuts [Re: afoaf]
    #1711937 -

afoaf writes:

wouldn't it, though?
that is, if your intentions were to make your 50 million
in the software industry by offering a better web browser
or publishing application.

Who said I had to acquire my money in such a manner? I haven't the faintest idea how to write computer code. Nor do I know how to build a sports car capable of doing 200 miles an hour, so I doubt I'll try to go head-to-head with Ferrarri any time soon either.

are you saying that monopolies only exist with government
intervention?

Yes.

and how exactly can they not exist in a free market for any
length of time?

There has never been an example of a non-coercive monopoly, so historically I am on safe ground. Even speaking theoretically and ignoring historical fact, the only way in a free market a monopoly could exist for any length of time is if the monopoly company was able to provide a product of the highest possible quality at the lowest possible price with the best possible service and support to the widest possible audience -- in which case, who has been harmed?

In a free market, with no government barriers to entry, anyone may choose at any time to challenge existing manufacturers. To someone looking to start their own business, it usually makes sense to enter a less-crowded field than a more-crowded field. If there is only one provider of widgets, the chance of my seizing ten per cent of the market share of widgets (always assuming I have the know-how to make good widgets) away from him is far greater than my chance of seizing ten per cent of the market share of gadgets away from the existing three hundred and fifty gadget makers.

For example, I live in a small village in a third world country. There are dozens of restaurants here, some of them excellent. On the other hand, there is only one car-rental outlet, and it is pretty shabby, even though technically speaking it is a "monopoly". If I were to choose to get into business again here, I would open a car rental business and challenge the monopoly, aiming for an easy fifty per cent or better market share of the car rental market rather than have the dubious pleasure of opening the forty-second restaurant and fighting like hell to seize two per cent of the dining-out business.

respectfully, is it a typo or does everything you just said seem
backwards to me?

Nope. It's just that the "myth of monopolies" has been debunked so many times by so many economists that I often just assume that everyone else is as familiar with that particular false concept as I am, so I rarely bother to explain it in full.

pinky


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: to those that vote based on tax cuts [Re: Phred]
    #1711965 -

Who said I had to acquire my money in such a manner? I haven't the faintest idea how to write computer code. Nor do I know how to build a sports car capable of doing 200 miles an hour, so I doubt I'll try to go head-to-head with Ferrarri any time soon either.

it was a hypothetical scenario redirecting your gates
example.

the point being, his 50 million has been used in an
attempt to stop entrants or hinder existing players
in the aforementioned software markets which all
ties back to the original point that large pockets of
cash can be used as tools of oppression.


--------------------
All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: to those that vote based on tax cuts [Re: afoaf]
    #1712023 -

Armed robbery is not theft because the "victim" has the freedom to choose death.


--------------------
https://www.gofundme.com/f/support-for-renee-goods-wife-and-son

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: to those that vote based on tax cuts [Re: afoaf]
    #1712037 -

afoaf writes:

the point being, his 50 million has been used in an
attempt to stop entrants or hinder existing players
in the aforementioned software markets...

The key word here is "attempt".

Does Steve Jobs of Apple Computers have as much money as Bill Gates? Nope.

Yet did Bill Gates prevent Apple from being an extremely profitable company? Nope.

Has Microsoft driven Apple out of business? Nope.

That is because, despite all of Microsoft's marketing might, many people remain convinced that Microsoft's products are not the best available, so they choose other products.

...which all
ties back to the original point that large pockets of
cash can be used as tools of oppression.

Two points:

a) "can be" is not equivalent to "will be".

b) Offering people money to perform certain acts (i.e. to sell their business to you) is not oppression, it is trade.

pinky


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: to those that vote based on tax cuts [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #1712043 -

BabyHitler writes:

Armed robbery is not theft because the "victim" has the freedom to choose death.

Armed robbery is theft. Offering to buy a competitor's business from him is not.

pinky


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: to those that vote based on tax cuts [Re: Phred]
    #1712617 -

ah, I fear I have typecast myself by not using the right disclaimers.

pinksharkmark, I must admit that your real world examples are quite good, and they remind me of a situation which existed in the US over two hundred years ago, which is to say, total undevelopment. In a totally undeveloped area, Large amounts of money are necessary to bring development. An ultra-capitalist, almost feudalist organization is actually helpful at this stage of development. These systems and structures will build roads and power plants and services that are needed.

But in a highly populated area that happens to be more advanced than most places in the world, we've already taken care of all that. And our population is higher and the money just piles up in one place even though thre are a lot of people who need it and a lot of good work that can be done with it.

But instead of going toward good things, it is used to buy legislators, cheat investors, and maniplulate the very fabric of the economy itself. You may not understand it because it is illogical, but I can't be held accountable for the logicality of people who are empty inside.


Remem,ber, I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm not saying I'm wrong, I'm saying that different things work for different people in different stages of the game.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: to those that vote based on tax cuts [Re: Phred]
    #1712639 -

What about threatening to force all of a businesses customers to stop buying that businesses product if they don't sell out to them cheap.

By "force" I mean threaten to withdraw their business if they don't comply with their demands to stop buying the other company's product.

Businesses can "force" other businesses to do many things. Essentially by threatening to kill the business.

It happens all the time. Dont pretend that it does not.


--------------------
https://www.gofundme.com/f/support-for-renee-goods-wife-and-son

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: to those that vote based on tax cuts [Re: 1stimer]
    #1712664 -

i'm gonna guess, judging from the quality of your posts, that you're a high school kid.

i'm gonna guess that your only experience with money has been a $6.00 an hour job or maybe an allowance...

you've probably never paid bills.

you definitely don't have your own medical or dental coverage...

i know you're at a very special time in life, a time when you know everything, but please don't come in here talkin' like this 'til ya been out in the real world son...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: to those that vote based on tax cuts [Re: ]
    #1712805 -

I think He's right. Taxes are not the most important thing to consider when choosing a candidate. I would count among the things that I would consider a higher priority to be things like civil rights, foreign policy, and upholding the constutuion.

I wish people would stop pretending their world is THE "real" world


--------------------
https://www.gofundme.com/f/support-for-renee-goods-wife-and-son

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: to those that vote based on tax cuts [Re: Phred]
    #1712837 -

Quote:

are you saying that monopolies only exist with government
intervention?

Yes.

and how exactly can they not exist in a free market for any
length of time?

There has never been an example of a non-coercive monopoly, so historically I am on safe ground. Even speaking theoretically and ignoring historical fact, the only way in a free market a monopoly could exist for any length of time is if the monopoly company was able to provide a product of the highest possible quality at the lowest possible price with the best possible service and support to the widest possible audience -- in which case, who has been harmed?

Just to clarify here, pinky argues that unless a company owns 100% of the market, they are not a monopoly. In the purest sense of the word, he is right, but in a practical sense, companies that dominate the market are still regarded by most as monopolies (like Microsoft).
Quote:
In a free market, with no government barriers to entry, anyone may choose at any time to challenge existing manufacturers. To someone looking to start their own business, it usually makes sense to enter a less-crowded field than a more-crowded field. If there is only one provider of widgets, the chance of my seizing ten per cent of the market share of widgets (always assuming I have the know-how to make good widgets) away from him is far greater than my chance of seizing ten per cent of the market share of gadgets away from the existing three hundred and fifty gadget makers.

Pinky also believes in liassez-faire economics, which is no longer mainstream thought in academia (except at the University of Chicago where laissez faire has always been championed). Laissez-faire economists tend to take an overly simplistic view of the world to make their points. For example:

In a free market, with no government barriers to entry, anyone may choose at any time to challenge existing manufacturers.

Anyone? Well, to take on GM and Ford, and the giants of many other business, you pretty much need to have a few hundred million to get started, and find some suppliers that are willing to risk breaking their exclusive contracts with GM and Ford to sell to you (or some new suppliers with no experience). There's a lot of other barriers to entry as well. It's not nearly as easy as it sounds.

Quote:
respectfully, is it a typo or does everything you just said seem
backwards to me?

Nope. It's just that the "myth of monopolies" has been debunked so many times by so many economists that I often just assume that everyone else is as familiar with that particular false concept as I am, so I rarely bother to explain it in full.

Yes, some believe they have "debunked" the "myth of monopolies", but it's not the mainstream belief, which is probalby why you thought pinky had it backwards - you most likely learned economics from a mainstream school.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: to those that vote based on tax cuts [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #1712840 -

Baby_Hitler said:
Businesses can "force" other businesses to do many things. Essentially by threatening to kill the business.

It happens all the time. Dont pretend that it does not.

I totally agree with you.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: to those that vote based on tax cuts [Re: ]
    #1712869 -

Quote:
but please don't come in here talkin' like this 'til ya been out in the real world son...


So who queefed and made you the king of the messageboards my boy.

Actually i havent had a job that pays over $10 an hour, so your wrong.
Im a senior in college, so your wrong.
I pay all living expenses including bills, so your wrong.
I dont have medical or dental coverage cuz its too expensive so your right there. I guess were not all as privelaged as you(especially when it comes to being wrong).

You spew such ignorance maybe you shouldnt post here.


--------------------
ash dingy donker mo gollyhopper patty popiton rockstop bueno mayo riggedy jig bobber johnathan pattywhacker gogboob t-shirt monkey.

There is such emotion in the distortion.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: to those that vote based on tax cuts [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #1713507 -

BabyHitler writes:

What about threatening to force all of a businesses customers to stop buying that businesses product if they don't sell out to them cheap.
By "force" I mean threaten to withdraw their business if they don't comply with their demands to stop buying the other company's product.

Well, I see we have both managed to stray pretty far from the topic of the thread -- tax cuts -- but I'll address your question anyway:

Where is it written that if you partake in a business transaction with a company once, you must continue forever? If by choosing to cease dealing with a particular company one is breaking a contract, it is of course an issue for the courts. If there is no contract, what is the problem?

Businesses can "force" other businesses to do many things. Essentially by threatening to kill the business.

Some business ventures are dependent on other businesses, true. That is why an intelligent businessman (one who understands the dangers of putting all his eggs in one basket) will either:

a) Sign longterm contracts with key suppliers whenever possible, and seek multiple suppliers whenever possible.

b) Expand his business to the point where he can buy out one of the suppliers, thereby assuring a steady supply of key components.

c) accept a buyout offer and get into a different business.

Just because one chooses to get into a particular line of business is no guarantee one will be successful at it. There are risks in every business venture. Manufacturers and resellers who depend on others for supplies risk losing their sources of supply not only through the suppliers' deliberate intransigence, but also through the possibility the supplier may go bankrupt, be bought out by a competitor, be sued out of existence by litigation-happy folks or regulated out of existence by legislation-happy governments, etc.

There is no force involved when a supplier -- upon termination of a contract -- decides to change the terms under which he will continue to do business with a particular customer.

pinky


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: to those that vote based on tax cuts [Re: DoctorJ]
    #1713524 -

DoctorJ writes:

In a totally undeveloped area, Large amounts of money are necessary to bring development.

If this were true, no country would ever have become developed. Paleolithic societies didn't have lots of money to throw around. What is required for development is productive effort and access to technology.

It is true, however, that development will occur more quickly in a given area if outside investors are allowed to invest. The less these people are taxed, the more they have to invest.

But in a highly populated area that happens to be more advanced than most places in the world, we've already taken care of all that.

True. So now that we have, it is correct to tax the hell out of everyone? How does that follow?

And our population is higher...

Higher than who? Or do you mean "higher than it was in the past"? Either way, what does that have to do with justifying high taxes?

... and the money just piles up in one place even though thre are a lot of people who need it and a lot of good work that can be done with it.

Let me get this straight. Are you saying I have no right to keep the stuff I earned or had given to me as a gift by others of their own free will -- because others believe they can utilize my stuff better than I can?

But instead of going toward good things...

Who decides what these good things might be?

... it is used to buy legislators...

This is one of the reasons I am an advocate of Laissez-faire Capitalism. Under any political system, some legislators will be tempted to accept bribes and wield their power capriciously. That is why it is critical to limit their influence to the bare essentials.

... cheat investors...

Fraud should be (and is) illegal, and therefore a matter for the courts.

... and maniplulate the very fabric of the economy itself.

A phrase so vague as to be meaningless. Specifics, please.

You may not understand it because it is illogical, but I can't be held accountable for the logicality of people who are empty inside.

I have no problem with people who are either illogical or empty inside, as long as they leave me alone. My problem is when those empty illogical people are put in control of the taxation system.

...I'm saying that different things work for different people in different stages of the game.

Principles are principles. Freedom is freedom. No matter what stage of the game someone may be in on any given day, freedom from forcible interference for all individuals is of the greatest possible longterm benefit to all.

pinky


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: to those that vote based on tax cuts [Re: Cornholio]
    #1713532 -

Cornholio writes:

Just to clarify here, pinky argues that unless a company owns 100% of the market, they are not a monopoly. In the purest sense of the word, he is right, but in a practical sense, companies that dominate the market are still regarded by most as monopolies (like Microsoft).

Microsoft could be considered by some to be a "de facto" monopoly. However, there are plenty of alternatives to Microsoft products. The reason Microsoft dominates the market is that more people freely choose to use Windows as their OS than Mac OS or Sun OS or Unix and all its variants. The majority of people (rightly or wrongly) feel Microsoft products suit their needs the best. It wasn't always this way -- in the late Seventies and early Eighties CP/M and Apple's OS were the "monopolistic" operating systems. Just as their "monopolies" were broken by Microsoft, it is entirely possible that Microsoft's "monopoly" will someday be broken.

Anyone? Well, to take on GM and Ford, and the giants of many other business, you pretty much need to have a few hundred million to get started, and find some suppliers that are willing to risk breaking their exclusive contracts with GM and Ford to sell to you (or some new suppliers with no experience). There's a lot of other barriers to entry as well. It's not nearly as easy as it sounds.

Is GM a monopoly? Is Ford?

If you want to start a business building automobiles you will of course need a higher initial investment than for a business building skateboards. This is true not only in a laissez-faire economy, but in any economy. What's your point?

Yes, some believe they have "debunked" the "myth of monopolies", but it's not the mainstream belief...

"Mainstream" is not equivalent to "truthful". As I pointed out, there is no historical example of any monopoly existing for any length of time without government intervention -- a fact (and yes it is a fact) that the "mainstream" Keynesian economics professors conveniently gloss over. I note you have been unable to provide such an example for us.

...which is probalby why you thought pinky had it backwards - you most likely learned economics from a mainstream school.

And the ever-declining academic performance of those educated in America's "mainstream" government schools should give you some idea of the worth of such schools.

pinky


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: to those that vote based on tax cuts [Re: Phred]
    #1713801 -

Quote:
pinksharkmark said:
Is GM a monopoly? Is Ford?

Fine. Oligopoly, which is almost the same thing from an economics perspective.

Quote:
If you want to start a business building automobiles you will of course need a higher initial investment than for a business building skateboards. This is true not only in a laissez-faire economy, but in any economy. What's your point?

The point is, it's not nearly as easy to break up a monopoly as laissez faire economists seem to believe. In fact, it's damn near impossible.

Quote:
"Mainstream" is not equivalent to "truthful".

True, but since most people who have made a career studying economics have independently written laissez faire off, it is probably less likely to be true than New Keynesianism.

Quote:
As I pointed out, there is no historical example of any monopoly existing for any length of time without government intervention -- a fact (and yes it is a fact) that the "mainstream" Keynesian economics professors conveniently gloss over. I note you have been unable to provide such an example for us.

Again, this goes back to the definition of monopoly. If a company dominates the market, call it what you will, but from most economists' perspective, it is a monopoly. And using this defenition of dominance, Microsoft is an example (or else why would an anti-trust suit have been brought up against them?)

Quote:
And the ever-declining academic performance of those educated in America's "mainstream" government schools should give you some idea of the worth of such schools.

While the quality of public schools is indeed poor, they teach what is taught by most of the top economics universities in the nation.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: to those that vote based on tax cuts [Re: Cornholio]
    #1714093 -

"'In a totally undeveloped area, Large amounts of money are necessary to bring development. '

If this were true, no country would ever have become developed. Paleolithic societies didn't have lots of money to throw around. What is required for development is productive effort and access to technology. "

Sorry, I meant that in this situation (undevelopment) large conglomerations of money were helpful; ie- one organization controling a large percentage of available funds and resources. Thats how most places get developed.

"'And our population is higher... '

Higher than who? Or do you mean "higher than it was in the past"? Either way, what does that have to do with justifying high taxes?

Higher than it has ever been before, and higher than undeveloped areas. and I'm not rying to justify high taxes for everyone, only the wealthy, and only if the money is put to good use. The problem now is that there are people so wealthy that they can literally buy the government and use the federal reserve and the IRS for their own ends.

"Who decides what these good things might be? "

Circumstance. If you knew what our circumstances were right now, you would agree with every word I'm saying. Right now, I think that circumstance demand we increase our tech to the point where our expansion is not confined to this planet. I think we should be doing this sooner, rather than later, because it will take a long time and we don't have much.

Too bad one organization controls our whole media and keeps millions in the dark about our circumstances...

"Let me get this straight. Are you saying I have no right to keep the stuff I earned or had given to me as a gift by others of their own free will -- because others believe they can utilize my stuff better than I can? "

On a personal level, I'm sure whatever possesions you have are not much infraction on the total wealth of the planet. One can live quite comfortably and even accomplish quite a bit without hitting that cieling, but it is there.

But when it comes to large conglomerations of old money controlled by people who are oblivious to the circumstances of the world right now... I would agree with your statement.

"Fraud should be (and is) illegal, and therefore a matter for the courts. "

That statement is hilariously naive. What about people who have enough money and connections to buy the courts?

Ever hear of John Markham? World Com? John markam blatantly cheated hundreds of millions of dollars, and the SEC revoked his liscense and gave him a $15 million fine. His company's severance package was $30 million.

And thats just a blatant criminal. There are many others who dont break laws, but are always bending them to their advantage. Lawyers guns and money is all it takes. Believe me, my Dad is a lawyer, I know.

"'... and maniplulate the very fabric of the economy itself. '

A phrase so vague as to be meaningless. Specifics, please. "

If you can influence both the federal reserve and the IRS, you basically run the economy. You think that money in your pocket is valuable because it can be exchanged for goods and services, but who controls the rate? And where is that rate now compared to 30 years ago? Where is that rate going?

Among just a few measures of control... put down the textbooks and use your imagination.

"Principles are principles. Freedom is freedom. No matter what stage of the game someone may be in on any given day, freedom from forcible interference for all individuals is of the greatest possible longterm benefit to all."

Dude, a lot of the stuff that you write sounds directly out of Ayn Rand or some economics textbook. You know those are just theories, right? You need to quite thinking in terms of absolutes. Whats good now isn't always good... there is no universal truth, there is only pragmatics.

why don't you try thinking about all the factors of the worlds situation right now instead of turning to a textbook and memorizing its rhetoric? I love freedom, too- thats why I want to ensure its survival. freedom has great potential for good and evil. we must maintain proper balance.













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

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder

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

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Bush sneaks through more tax cuts for the rich during war
( 1 2 all )		 EchoVortex 4,966 39 03/26/03 09:09 PM
by luvdemshrooms
* I guess Dems don't find all tax cut's a bad thing!
( 1 2 3 all )		 luvdemshrooms 3,584 41 09/15/03 10:06 PM
by Phred
* W.House: Tax Cuts to Create 800,000 Jobs
( 1 2 3 all )		 Ellis Dee 5,801 40 03/03/02 09:53 PM
by sparafucile
* Corzine speaks on the Bush tax cuts. luvdemshrooms 623 3 10/30/03 02:00 PM
by Phred
* ATTN: Supporters of Bush's tax cuts
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 silversoul7 4,063 66 07/16/03 08:19 AM
by Anonymous
* Privatisation and Tax Cuts at work...USA
( 1 2 all )		 carbonhoots 2,758 39 02/13/03 04:59 AM
by Prisoner#1
* Incredible article on the "tax cuts". luvdemshrooms 499 8 07/08/03 07:05 AM
by Rhizoid
* The Faith-Based Presidency EchoVortex 769 5 04/19/04 06:49 AM
by GernBlanston

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
2,407 topic views. 1 members, 3 guests and 6 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 0.041 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 16 queries.