Balzac89
Well-Known Member
I think food stamps is a job program, but it needs to have more restrictions.
It creates two dollars worth of jobs for every dollar spent on food product.
No More Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthiest
- Thread starter abandonconflict
- Start date
I think food stamps is a job program, but it needs to have more restrictions.
It creates two dollars worth of jobs for every dollar spent on food product.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I get that ... but surely there must be a way to see to it that we can eat ... without doing an injury to the money supply. Printing money is NOT the way imo. cn
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
When you're ass is in a corner, you have to do what you have to do.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
cn
chrishydro
Well-Known Member
25 Percent of Americans pay 75 percent of the taxes the Gov Collects from Individuals. What percentage would you like them to pay 100?
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
"progressive taxation", lol cn
canndo
Well-Known Member
You see, you are doing the same thing others do, rather than simpy examining the way things work and going from there, you are looking for isolated examples and using those as arguments - where is the flaw in my argument? Now beyond that, to my recollection Clinton did not cut taxes on the rich.
lifegoesonbrah
Well-Known Member
Progressive taxation: Because their fair share is much more than ours. 
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Imo progressive taxation is like aspirin. A little is very healthy. But it doesn't scale. Eating a handful is bad. cn
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Beenthere has very selective perception. Look at post #112 of this thread, you can't ever convince this 1D10T of anything because he is immune to logic.
canndo
Well-Known Member
I don't remember the exact numbers, but since the wealthy is such a small portion of the country, tax hikes on the wealthy generate an unnoticeable amount of income compared to the governments overall tax revenue. The costs of pushing away investors greatly outweighs the benefit of the extra tax revenue. Besides, as the drunk guy said above, increases in taxes will only encourage them to find and create loopholes anyways.
Seems like a lose/lose to me.
And here is yet another false postulate. "people won't invest if they are taxed more". This is incorrect. People will continue to invest so long as they can receive a true return on their money. If they can get a return of 10 percent they will invest there, if they cannot, then they will invest at 5, if not 5 then 2 if not 2 then .5. No one with any amount of money simply refuses to invest it because their taxes are too high. If you want to look at the Laffer curve, eventually taxation will so inhibit an economy that government revenues will decrease with increased taxation. Other than that, this "small" amount of money actually winds up being trillions over decades.
canndo
Well-Known Member
I don't remember the exact numbers, but since the wealthy is such a small portion of the country, tax hikes on the wealthy generate an unnoticeable amount of income compared to the governments overall tax revenue. The costs of pushing away investors greatly outweighs the benefit of the extra tax revenue. Besides, as the drunk guy said above, increases in taxes will only encourage them to find and create loopholes anyways.
Seems like a lose/lose to me.
Beyond that, it isn't the number of people but the amount of wealth they have - and they have a considerable portion of all the wealth in the U.S.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
I agree, but that very little aspirin is kind of like how Not Sure switched the crops to water and got a lot of people fired from Brawndo and screwed up the ecomony.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Laffer Curve (theory)
Laffer Curve (practice)
cn
Laffer Curve (practice)
cn
canndo
Well-Known Member
Not even close Neutron. You answer "well there has to be SOME regulation", but you don't say what or how much and in so doing you ignore the specifics. Most anit-government folk tend to do that when the specifics are the point. As the rich grow richer for what ever reason (it could be government aided, I'll grant you that) and the middle class grows weaker you will see serfs and vassels, and an absence of the middle class. No middle class, as I have said, no free market economy.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
You mean a market needs customers? PREPOSTEROUS!
canndo
Well-Known Member
He says as he ignores the fact that the sky (employment) did fall and is falling.
canndo
Well-Known Member
To those who go on and on about "redistribution", two things, firstly all taxation is income redistribution, in that case you are complaining about the degree of redistrtibution and from whom the majority is taken. I have said, according to national averages I make more money and pay more taxes than the majority here - possibly you. If that is the case, and we each consume the same amount of "government" services then you are taking my money.
Now unless you can figure a way to run this country on no taxation at all, or unless you can guarantee that every person makes the same amount and pays the same amount, you are stuck with redistribution.
Secondly, as I have said, the average wage of workers in this country has remained static or even fallen in the last 30 or so years, yet their productivity has increased. Now the average income of the 1 percent has increased. If workers are the only ones that can create wealth, then they seem to be creating wealth for the express purpose of "redistributing" it to the wealthy. Yet I don't see you complianing about that sort of redistribution, where I come from that is called theft. Now I know you will go on and on about how horrible the government is for making you into a slave, but the true nature of reality is far different than you seem to believe.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Progressive taxation: Because their fair share is much more than ours.
Ayn Rand collected social security.
canndo
Well-Known Member
Let us add to that.
It has been said that if we took all the money in this country from every person in this country and threw it all up in the air, pretty much the same people who had the majority of it would again aquire the majority of it. Now in essence I believe that - some people have a knack for the aquisition of wealth.
But so many believe that our most precious resource is the rich - and that is not so as the only resource that counts is the working class (until such time as robots do all work).
So, if we were to get rid of all the rich people in this country Wed. morning, by Friday afternoon there would be a new class of rich, perhaps not quite as adept as the old class but still adept enough to aquire their own class of wealth. If we got rid of them, another group would take it's place.
The rich are a renewable resource which sustains itself quite handsomely. We have no reason whatsoever to protect them as we would some endangered pellican.