Rand Paul: Dem Race Now a Choice Between ‘Socialism and Corruption’

natro.hydro

natro.hydro

Well-Known Member
Uncle Ben said:
Bush was a fine man of great moral character despite what the wingnuts had to say. He healed the nation after 9/11, killed all the top key Islamic terrorists, gave peace back to the Iraqi people, etc.

Look where we are now - the middle east and Europe is in shambles, folks are still out of work, we have the highest national debt in all of history, a worthless and corrupt Sec. of State, NSA debacles, security debacles, IRS corruption.....

Obama's a fuck up.
Click to expand...
Hmmm what "key" Islamic terrorists did he get????
 
The_Herban_Legend

The_Herban_Legend

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
Yes, and labor creates all wealth. You failed to demonstrate the creation of wealth in the absence of labor.
Click to expand...
The creation of wealth is absent if resources are not there. Labor alone does not create wealth. No resource can without innovation. What is innovation synonymous with? If you answered creation, you are correct.
 
bearkat42

bearkat42

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
so the poor, who spend close to 100% of their incomes, pay tax on that almost 100%, while the rich, who don't spend anywhere near 100% of their incomes, only pay tax on that much smaller amount.

grand idea.

nice and regressive.

against your own best interests too.

dumbass.
Click to expand...
Idiots don't realize that they're voting against their economic interests. Sold the the "dream" that they too can achieve the the 1% status. Too stupid to realize that the system is setup for the exact opposite. RICH PEOPLE MAKE THE RULES!!!
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
bearkat42 said:
Idiots don't realize that they're voting against their economic interests. Sold the the "dream" that they too can achieve the the 1% status. Too stupid to realize that the system is setup for the exact opposite. RICH PEOPLE MAKE THE RULES!!!
Click to expand...
ginwilly has a little pipe dream of becoming rich trying to trade stocks on his computer or something. thinks he is smart enough to do it.

he's not.
 
bearkat42

bearkat42

Well-Known Member
bearkat42 said:
Idiots don't realize that they're voting against their economic interests. Sold the the "dream" that they too can achieve the the 1% status. Too stupid to realize that the system is setup for the exact opposite.
Click to expand...
UncleBuck said:
ginwilly has a little pipe dream of becoming rich trying to trade stocks on his computer or something. thinks he is smart enough to do it.

he's not.
Click to expand...
Probably pulling his hair out right now blowing all of his money on "Fan Duel" or "Draft Kings".
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Uncle Ben said:
I'm all for a flat tax, a consumption tax. The poor pay their fair share, the rich pay there's....equally.
Click to expand...
You say you want everyone to pay "their fair share", but your beliefs don't reflect that. What you actually want is for poor and middle-class people to pay more of their share of wealth than upper-class people because that's exactly what a regressive tax policy like the one you're suggesting does. Poor people spend a larger percentage of their income than rich people, therefore, if they consume more, they spend more paying taxes.

The tax brackets are designed based on percentage of income, not the dollar amount. It wouldn't be "fair" to tax someone making $100 per month the same amount as someone making $1,000,000 per month, nor would it be an efficient or effective policy.
 
The_Herban_Legend

The_Herban_Legend

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
Wealth can not be created in the absence of labor, therefore labor creates all wealth.
Click to expand...
A man buys 100 acres of land in 1980. The land is worth millions now and he sells it and is a multi-millionaire. Where was the labor that created the wealth? Seems you need innovation to create wealth but you do not always need the RESOURCE, labor, to create it.
 
see4

see4

Well-Known Member
1 star fail thread. Didn't even make it past the headline, knowing full well the asshat who wrote it, we all know it would be a crap thread completed unfounded and supported by only the like minded knuckle-dragging ilk.

Indeed, 1 star.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
The_Herban_Legend said:
A man buys 100 acres of land in 1980. The land is worth millions now and he sells it and is a multi-millionaire. Where was the labor that created the wealth? Seems you need innovation to create wealth but you do not always need the RESOURCE, labor, to create it.
Click to expand...
This is a facile and narrowly viewed hypothetical argument. First off, the labor is all over the market in which land values increased. Secondly, it gives absolutely no indication as to how the value increased, if something was built on it or if obstacles were cleared. Thirdly, someone has to do the work of selling it, buying it, maintaining it and monitoring market value. Last but certainly not least, no new wealth was actually created. The value which was derived is artificial, and based upon perceived scarcity brought about by changes in supply and demand. In essence, the land is the same. Artificial value is not wealth and can vanish as a bubble pops.

This is exactly like your Wall Street example which failed. Someone bought something and sold it for more. The increased demand which led to the increased value is still either based on labor or is an artificial bubble.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
The_Herban_Legend said:
A man buys 100 acres of land in 1980. The land is worth millions now and he sells it and is a multi-millionaire. Where was the labor that created the wealth?
Click to expand...
the labor happened all around his land. without improvements around his land, the value of that land does not go up.

dum dum.
 
natro.hydro

natro.hydro

Well-Known Member
The_Herban_Legend said:
A man buys 100 acres of land in 1980. The land is worth millions now and he sells it and is a multi-millionaire. Where was the labor that created the wealth? Seems you need innovation to create wealth but you do not always need the RESOURCE, labor, to create it.
Click to expand...
Did this man live at mommy and daddy's till he could afford that 100 acres and they helped him with the down payment?Where do the initial funds for the land purchase come from? Kinda chicken or the egg thing, takes money to make money.
 
The_Herban_Legend

The_Herban_Legend

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
This is a facile and narrowly viewed hypothetical argument. First off, the labor is all over the market in which land values increased. Secondly, it gives absolutely no indication as to how the value increased, if something was built on it or if obstacles were cleared. Thirdly, someone has to do the work of selling it, buying it, maintaining it and monitoring market value. Last but certainly not least, no new wealth was actually created. The value which was derived is artificial, and based upon perceived scarcity brought about by changes in supply and demand. In essence, the land is the same. Artificial value is not wealth and can vanish as a bubble pops.

This is exactly like your Wall Street example which failed. Someone bought something and sold it for more. The increased demand which led to the increased value is still either based on labor or is an artificial bubble.
Click to expand...
The consensus is, innovation creates wealth. The only people who would disagree with this, are the minions of Karl Marx. Are you a fan of Karl Marx?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top