| 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.
|
| Shop: |
| |||||||
|
Old Hand Registered: 05/17/04 Posts: 6,899 Loc: Dark side of the |
| ||||||
|
> i suspect your claim is much like what you said about reagan, IOW, wrong.
Reagan did raise taxes, around 11 times in fact. Some of them were some of the largest we've had and during a depression no less. It does seem that it was most likely a net tax cut, but again it's useless to compare the wrong numbers and we're not economics experts with all the figures. He did increase tax revenues, so somebody ended up paying more in taxes. Weather that came from economic recovery, elimination of loopholes, or just his extensive restructuring is hard to say without a lot of research. > You can't just toss out a figure and say "see, it says it on a chart" > Back up that 13% figure and we will talk about it. Sure, but the problem is that people on your side of the fence never want to talk about taxes in actual real figures. All they want to talk about is 35%, all the way up to figures of 40%. Since we KNOW that is not actually what corps. are paying it makes no sense to pay any attention to their statistics. The rich and powerful just want us to cry them a river at the same time they rack up record profits. If you've got any data to back up 35% then we can talk about that! The problem is that you know that doesn't add up with the numbers, so you've already lost that battle. You'll have to come up with a new number. It's pretty easy to see through all this if you open your eyes. Percentage of deficit vs. GDP went down during Carter, way up under Reagan and Bush I, way down under Clinton, way back up under Bush II, and Obama hasn't done much to get back on track. There's plenty of good excuses for Obama, especially republican obstruction that has prevented him from doing much of anything. Regardless of the reasons it's still no justification for the piss poor performance of the past 3 republican presidents, and it does nothing to take away from the fact that the past 2 dems have vastly outperformed them in fiscal responsibility. Why do you keep advocating failed policies and platforms? We've tried tax cuts for the rich many times now, to the point they pay less than the middle class, and it has never worked. They currently pay the least they ever have in our lifetimes. Why would you think going further in the same direction to an absurd extent is suddenly going to produce different results? It's going to produce the same results it always has, consolidation of the wealth to the rich. The top 5% control 72% of our nations wealth (according to Forbes). You know this isn't a healthy condition, and hopefully you aren't naive enough to think it's the result of a fair or true capitalist system. This is our real economic sickness. And you know it can't continue this way. Tax cuts don't create jobs, demand for products and services creates jobs. Consolidating wealth simply weakens the buying power of the consumers that create this demand for product and services. The system WILL collapse at some point if current trends continue. The wealthy will continue to grab all the wealth they can until it breaks. They have little to fear as they'll be in the best position to take advantage of whatever situation arises. It's not like they'll be going hungry no matter what happens. Quote: Not sure I follow you there. "Profits" already implies a net figure. I think you're completely brainwashed to the point of thinking there's some tax rate corporations should be paying on an imaginary number that is less than income - expenses. Hopefully you don't think that corps are paying 35% on their gross revenue! Although I'm sure they'd try to convince you that was the case. Quote: First, you've been listening to the doomsayers promising a quick cure if you only give them more money. The USA has a debt of around $16T (2012), and a GDP of $15.7T (2012). This would be like a family that makes $50k having a $49k mortgage. Most people would consider that household to be in excellent economic shape. When you consider they also have more guns than the entire rest of their town, it's hard to see what huge problem could cause them to fail. We also print the world's reserve currency. That means we can devalue our currency PLUS everything that is held or traded in USD. I can't find any good numbers on the total value of all wealth held in USD, but I think it's pretty likely that we could simply use a little inflation to take care of the debt problem. Another interesting fact is that compared to the rest of the world Americans are the top 1%. I think you're way too worried about the wealthiest country in the world carrying just over a year's income worth of debt. It's far more important to worry about preventing some sort of major collapse and holding onto our alpha dog economic position in the world than fretting over our debt. We're number 15 in the world in debt vs. GDP, and there's a lot of strong countries well above us on that list. I agree that the budget should be balanced and the debt paid down, but there's just no crisis and economic collapse isn't going to come from this. Collapse will come from declining exports, declining buying power of the American consumer, and all the jobs being shipped overseas to slave nations. > Building dorms costs a ton and you haven't told us where the money will come from. Certainly you can see the economic sense in owning the facilities rather than paying someone else to rent them. A lot of the money would also come from a reduction in benefits. I'm proposing a cot instead of an apartment and commodity food instead of giving everyone $200/month in food money. Even with building a lot of housing facilities I don't see how this wouldn't pay off pretty quickly and turn into a huge savings in the long run. I'd also have most of these people working. Tired of rice and beans and sleeping on a cot in a tent or large room? Then do some menial labor that needs doing and you can have a curtain and have one meal a day with some meat. Do some skilled work or really bust ass in some of the harder jobs and you can get a small apartment or private dorm room and have some meat with every meal. I don't see how any sane person with any morals can think that even a single person in the wealthiest country in the world should go hungry or exposed. NOR do I think that any reasonable person should think that anyone should get more than 3 hots and a cot for free. Especially troubling as a geneticist is the idea that people should be paid to have children. If the parents can't provide their kids with 3 hots and a cot 100% on their own dime then they should be taken away. Considering that we'd be paying for the parents' meals and cots, if needed, it's a very low expectation that they come up with enough for their children. -FF
| |||||||
|
Alt Center Registered: 06/20/04 Posts: 14,850 Loc: S.E. |
| ||||||
|
LOL, reading one of your posts is like going down the rabbit hole into wonderland where problems are solved by juggling the figures.
You are still in denial about reagan >Reagan did raise taxes, around 11 times in fact. He must have lowered them 12 times because even as you reluctantly admit, he lowered taxes. I asked you to back up your claim of 13% and you said "Sure" but then you changed the subject and never backed it up a bit. Now you want me to back up my statement about 35%? Ok, here it is: Sure. I'll do better than that "The highest marginal tax rates in 2011 were found in the United Arab Emirates—at 55%; Japan—with a 40.69% tax rate; the United States – at 40%; Honduras, Malta, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Sudan and Zambia —all tied at 35%" Read more: http://www.gfmag.com/tools/globa Under Creative Commons License: Attribution Share Alike So i misspoke, its actually as high as 40% in usa >Since we KNOW that is not actually what corps. are paying it makes no sense to pay any attention to their statistics. You know this how? I keep trying to pry it out of you but it seems to be some urban legend that you've latched onto. >Regardless of the reasons it's still no justification for the piss poor performance of the past 3 republican presidents, and it does nothing to take away from the fact that the past 2 dems have vastly outperformed them in fiscal responsibility. ROFL! you shouldn't post while tripping or is that what you actually believe? Clinton inheirited a surplus which he squandered. You are telling us obama is fiscally responsible? Obama and responsible don't belong in the same sentence. He has piled up more debt than the first 42 presidents combined. And what does he have to show for it? A stalled economy, gridlock in congress and a looming crisis for the dollar. Clinton faced a hostile congress and house but managed to work out some deals. Obama with full control of the senate and a sizable portion of the house, can't get anything done. His leadership skills are a joke. You have totally run away from the statement you made that usa imports more goods than the rest of the world combined. Can we get an "ooops" at least? You have made more shoot from the hip statements than are worthwhile to dispute. Its like playing whack a mole with you. One thing is knocked down, you come back with 5 more whacky things. For example: >The USA has a debt of around $16T (2012), and a GDP of $15.7T (2012). This would be like a family that makes $50k having a $49k mortgage. Most people would consider that household to be in excellent economic shape. When you consider they also have more guns than the entire rest of their town, it's hard to see what huge problem could cause them to fail. Sorry, that is so far from the truth i hardly know where to begin. First of all, gdp is not the same as income. Who the hell told you that or did you just make it up on the fly? GDP is the value of all goods and services produced in a year. Not profit net or otherwise, simply the gross value. Like if a company sells $10m worth of goods and makes a profit after taxes of $200k, they made good money but they didn't make $10m. So now that we've clarified its not like a family with income of $50, who owes 49k, btw, you have you numbers reversed, our nat debt is greater than the gdp. Just a minor detail, right? The other glaring error is you calling the debt a mortgage on a house. There is no house that can be sold to pay off the mortgage if need be. Or shall we sell all public and private land to china to bail us out? Most mortgages have an equity which means if the house was sold there would be money left over. Not with the nat debt. There is nothing backing it up but the rep of the usa. You've toned down your demand for dorms for every homeless or lazy person, which is good. 3 hots and a cot we can all agree on. This part here is where you make the most sense. >I'd also have most of these people working. Tired of rice and beans and sleeping on a cot in a tent or large room? Then do some menial labor that needs doing and you can have a curtain and have one meal a day with some meat. Do some skilled work or really bust ass in some of the harder jobs and you can get a small apartment or private dorm room and have some meat with every meal. You are also right about inflation coming, i've been saying that for years. But it won't be like just adjusting a thermostat, it will cause major pain especially for those on a fixed income and for the poor which you claim to want to help. So now you will run away from the parts where you were shown wrong and make up some more crazy shite? If you would try to stick with one or two things instead of going on a bunch of tangents everytime, it would be easier for people to follow, if any havent given up by now. -------------------- “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.” (attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville political philosopher Circa 1835) Trade list http://www.shroomery.org/forums/
| |||||||
|
Old Hand Registered: 05/17/04 Posts: 6,899 Loc: Dark side of the |
| ||||||
Quote: Hmm... Source is: KPMG International, Corporate and Indirect Tax Survey 2011 If you want to find the actual tax rate you take total corporate tax receipts divided by corporate profits, not take a "survey". Little surprise that 9 out of 10 republican corporate managers think their taxes are too high. > So i misspoke, its actually as high as 40% in usa You need to decide what we're talking about first here, then find some real numbers. I thought we were talking about the federal corporate tax rate. You can come up with a whole range of numbers if you want to throw in state/county/city/sales/etc. taxes. Quote: Divided by... Quote: = 17.2% So there you have it! Apparently it's changed little since the 16.1% 2000-2005 average I've been quoting. This is the REAL number. This is what companies ACTUALLY pay in corporate taxes. This is our real, actual federal corporate tax rate. So again, this puts us right around the middle to low end of the spectrum of developed countries. Since corporate profits are at record levels, and we're charging discount prices to corporations for the privilege of operating in the most powerful, safest, premium level country in the world... WTF is your argument for lowering the corporate tax rate again? (Remember that even at 0% tax we wouldn't be even close to doing anything our wage gap with slave nations) Throwing out numbers like 35% or 40% is at best a diversionary tactic, and more likely just a plain old baldfaced lie. You can't argue with 2012 numbers straight from the U.S. Department of Commerce. Quote: No, I don't. Common sense should tell you that with the world's highest GDP (by far) we would also import the most goods. https://www.cia.gov/library/publ Quote: So unless you consider the all of Europe to be one country, then YES we import the most goods, by far ($540b more). Quote: Wack a mole? You haven't been right on ANYTHING yet. I haven't been WRONG on anything yet here. I can make "shoot from the hip" statements because I actually know what is going on in reality here. I watch faux news for laughs, not to get real information. Quote: Damn Stone, quit putting your foot in your mouth! That's exactly what GDP is. "Under economic theory, GDP per capita exactly equals the gross domestic income (GDI) per capita" (from wikipedia) GDP is the total value of all goods and services you produce in a year. This is our country's income. It's certainly not what the fed gets, but it IS our (the US's) total income. Quote: The analogy is still the same. Our family still takes in $50k and has a $49k mortgage. Obviously they have expenses like car/power/water/food/gas/etc., so they can't just pay off the mortgage in one year. Obviously their income is not the same as their spending money. The analogy holds just fine. We take in $49k (gross) and have a $50k mortgage, and after paying all the bills we may only have a few percent left to pay on the mortgage. How exactly the analogy holds is besides the point. Running this much debt vs. GDP may not be the best thing in the world (we all agree on this), but it's not unusual in the world, and it's not going to cause any major collapse. Quote: Looks like you've managed to nitpick your way into one small victory! Of course, the actual numbers are right, just got reversed in an analogy. Not really sure how big of a trophy you want for that? ![]() Quote: That's a very valid point. But perhaps the "equity" is that we've spent the majority of that debt on guns/tanks/planes/bombs/etc., and also on blowing the fuck out of a couple other countries to prove that the money was well spent. Quote: The whole system is fucked. There isn't one single politician or major party that is even trying to do what's right as far as I can tell. I'm certainly no liberal, but from what I can see they are by far the most conservative party in power. The republicans want to continue and accelerate a radical departure from anything making any amount of economic sense, and use bullshit numbers and deceptive propaganda to an alarming extent. The fact that a religious nutjob openly proposed the exact opposite of good economic policy and nearly won the election REALLY scares me! I haven't toned anything down, just clarified. If there actually wasn't enough food, shelter, or money to go around I'd be the first one to cut out welfare entirely and let people starve in the streets. I'd never ask a millionaire to eat dog food so some worthless bum could be saved from starvation. That's REAL communism. But when our rich have elevators in their garages so their luxury cars can be stored on two levels... it's only reasonable that even the most worthless bum at least get some beans and rice first. Quote: I'm not so sure. And I don't really care about the poor. They deserve 3 hots and a cot out of common decency, and after doing this I really don't owe them anything more and I can forget about them completely. That's the beauty and value of my proposal. Job training, college financing, work programs, education, unemployment insurance, and other things to help them out ARE good things. But should only be evaluated in selfish terms. We should do those things because it benefits us. If we don't see a real return on a program then cut it! If we provide the basics for everyone in need then we owe them nothing else and we don't have to listen to bleeding heart bullshit about how "good" some program is. Free education/training programs either pay off or they don't. A good program will pay us back in taxes and reduced welfare costs, if it doesn't then fuck it. But if we can at least break even then it's pure self interest to give the poor a "hand up". Our inflation is pretty damn low, and historically even much higher inflation doesn't usually cause total collapse. With our economic might and being the world reserve currency, I think we could get away with pretty large inflation without much in the way of short-term penalties. Of course, in the long term it could cause our credit rating to fall and the other countries to work towards finding another reserve currency. Hyperinflation is another matter... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyp Take a look at that long list of countries that have tried inflation over 50%! It's pretty interesting how many countries have tried this foolishness. Guaranteed collapse! Quote: I think the chances anyone else is still following this is pretty slim. You'll have to refresh me of "the parts where you were shown wrong". Reagan did raise taxes, even if he had a slight net decrease overall by the end of his terms. This is in no way compatible with the current republican party. They would not raise taxes at all in any shape or form according to their "pledge", even if it was part of an overall tax cut strategy. The actual, real federal corporate tax rate is 17%. Receipts/profits. There is no other honest way to figure this number, and if I tried shit like the republicans and you have suggested on MY taxes I would be in prison for tax evasion. If you want to figure in state/county/city/sales/property -FF
| |||||||
|
Alt Center Registered: 06/20/04 Posts: 14,850 Loc: S.E. |
| ||||||
|
Fred took several huge tokes of killer weed and wrote:
>17.2% (for the corporate tax rate) You are inching your way along, better than the 13% you claimed a few posts back. Then we have this: Quote: (me) You have totally run away from the statement you made that usa imports more goods than the rest of the world combined. Can we get an "ooops" at least? (you) >No, I don't. Common sense should tell you that with the world's highest GDP (by far) we would also import the most goods. You are as slippery as an eel but "the rest of the world combined" is NOT the same as "the most goods" meaning more than any one country. You said and its in black and white unless you went back and did some editing, more than the rest of the world combined. Do you see how this is different than more than one country? The rest of the world consists of all countries minus usa. I think you see your little error so we will let this drop unless you insist on embarrassing yourself further. >Wack a mole? You haven't been right on ANYTHING yet. I haven't been WRONG on anything yet here. I see. So you stand by your "rest of the world combined" remark? How about this next one? >>First of all, gdp is not the same as income. >Damn Stone, quit putting your foot in your mouth! That's exactly what GDP is. GDP is the value of all goods and services produced in the country per year. Can we agree on that much at least? Lets say you are a business man. I know you aren't because of the things you say but lets pretend you are. You make gadgets and in one year you make and sell $1m worth of gadgets. That's pretty fair, i'm putting you ahead of most self employed people who cant sell a fraction of that in a year. Your expenses after all costs including labor for employees runs $900k. Now, what is your income? Think hard, scratch your head, break out the slide rule and what do you come up with? Hint: the answer is $100k If you said your income is $1m that is incorrect. $1m in this example is gross receipts. Your income which you pay taxes on is $100k and what is left, you get to spend. If you paid taxes on $1m you would be in the red despite making a profit before taxes. GDP = receipts before costs are deducted, thats why it's called "gross" and not "net" Thats 2, mr i-am-never-wrong and lets look further >The analogy is still the same. Our family still takes in $50k and has a $49k mortgage. Obviously they have expenses like car/power/water/food/gas/etc., so they can't just pay off the mortgage in one year. Obviously their income is not the same as their spending money. So your mythical family has a business that takes in 49k, or is it 50k? per year in sales, we don't know what profit they make but even growing pot or shrooms, there are expenses. >The analogy holds just fine. We take in $49k (gross) and have a $50k mortgage, and after paying all the bills we may only have a few percent left to pay on the mortgage. The profit margin on 49k (or 50k) per year is not going to be enough to feed and provide for a family. In your mind it works but in reality it does not. In your mind, gdp is the same as net income and in reality it is not. Go quote me professor I. M. Nutz who agrees with you. You say the equity on what we've spent lies in: >But perhaps the "equity" is that we've spent the majority of that debt on guns/tanks/planes/bombs/etc., and also on blowing the fuck out of a couple other countries to prove that the money was well spent. That "equity" will come back to haunt us. It was money badly and terribly spent. You do veer back into reality now and then > The whole system is fucked. There isn't one single politician or major party that is even trying to do what's right as far as I can tell. When you are right you are right. >I'm certainly no liberal... Woah, back into lala land. I guess mr obumble is a conservative then? >I don't really care about the poor. They deserve 3 hots and a cot out of common decency, and after doing this I really don't owe them anything more and I can forget about them completely. That's the beauty and value of my proposal. That is rational. I don't think we really "owe" them the hots and cot but if its doable, we should provide that. We are rapidly getting to the point that there are more takers than givers. I think i read that the bottom 50% pay no income taxes and receive the bulk of welfare, eic, and other handouts. The top 50% is getting tired of pulling the load but has not thrown off the yoke. Not just yet but it may come. >Our inflation is pretty damn low, and historically even much higher inflation doesn't usually cause total collapse. With our economic might and being the world reserve currency, I think we could get away with pretty large inflation without much in the way of short-term penalties. Of course, in the long term it could cause our credit rating to fall and the other countries to work towards finding another reserve currency. Inflation figures, much like the unemployment figures, are fictions made with creative bookkeeping. Maybe you can get a job as a bookkeeper with your hero o'fumbles? I have news for you, the world is already working toward finding another reserve currency, such as the chinese yuan. Our rating has already been dinged by at least one major rating service and more dings are coming. >Take a look at that long list of countries that have tried inflation over 50%! It's pretty interesting how many countries have tried this foolishness. Guaranteed collapse! They didn't "try" hyperinflation, it was forced on them. What they tried was to spend more than they took in. Thats what lead to the hyperinflation. See any comparison to what we are doing? Of course you don't. Reagan raised taxes even though they went down, the real corporate rate is whatever. It's been nice visiting you in wonderland. -------------------- “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.” (attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville political philosopher Circa 1835) Trade list http://www.shroomery.org/forums/
| |||||||
| |||||||
| Shop: |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
![]() |
Connection Rejected: 209.66.98.99 - fbi host .... ( |
13,786 | 89 | 09/06/04 12:16 PM by AlienPrimate | ||
![]() |
What States Not To Send Spores to ?? | 794 | 8 | 09/17/04 10:51 PM by Evolving | ||
![]() |
state by state sentencing | 2,690 | 3 | 06/04/01 09:49 AM by juliahardt | ||
![]() |
Spores In Illegal States. | 1,834 | 8 | 09/20/03 02:52 AM by | ||
![]() |
Any recommendations for maintaining security? | 2,306 | 10 | 11/19/02 08:38 PM by BuzzDoctor | ||
![]() |
Drug Law FAQ: A Guide to the Fourth Ammendment | 4,037 | 8 | 05/28/02 07:02 PM by GabbaDj | ||
![]() |
WARNING: Uncle Sam and Hollywood Want to Root Through Your P | 1,151 | 5 | 11/13/03 03:52 PM by daba | ||
![]() |
Geek squad works for the FBI ( |
912 | 20 | 05/04/21 02:26 PM by Northerner |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Enlil, Alan Rockefeller 942 topic views. 0 members, 2 guests and 1 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||


