- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 133,631
- Reaction score
- 30,937
- Location
- Bagdad, La.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Yeah, because lowering capital gains and eliminating the death tax did wonders... for Paris Hilton.
Some people on this board really have no concept of what true wealth really is and how it is spent... and misspent.
The only problem with that, is that today it will $250. Tomorrow, some genius will think it needs to be raised to a $1,000, then $5,000. You get the picture, I'm sure.
Bottom line, however, 250 bucks is 250 bucks. It has the same value to you as it does to anyone else.
So, because things might change, we should do nothing. Brilliant!
No, because this tax can and probably will be increased and will only stifle economic growth, it shouldn't be inacted.
No matter how hard they try, the government isn't going to create wealth.
So again, because things might change, nothing should be done.
I do not ever want to hear you complain about the deficit, since whenever anything is proposed to cut the deficit, you get upset.
When you say, "things might change", what are you talking about, exactly?
Stop spending a gazillion dollars on **** that won't produce any return! perhaps the deficit wouldn't be so bad, if we didn't piss money down a rabbit hole.
The tax rate, the reason for the tax, and so on. The list of things that might happen in the future is astronomical.
There are two ways to reduce the deficit, and both are probably needed. Reduced spending(which I have frequently referred to the need for), and increased revenue. Once we have at least a close to balanced budget and much lower debt, then we can look at what extras we can afford, and what taxes we might be able to live without. This particular tax is small enough to have no significant effect on people, and would raise revenue a notable amount.
Sweet! More bail out money!
It's okay Fortune 500 companies, you can hit rock bottom. Spender in Chief will bail you out. Oh! Corrupt executives? Just give them bonuses more than the average American makes in his or her life-time! Morals? Bah! I slosh at your morals slosh slosh
The bill aims to exempt retirement accounts from the impact of the tax.
We're in a massive recession and the answer to lower tax revenues isn't to spur growth in the private sector, but rather impose more taxes on the private sector. Now, that is brilliant!
I do not see this tax having any real significant negative effect on the economy.
If you work for a company and in your job you make that company $1 million, would it be fair for you to get a $20,000 bonus?
Not if the company tanked and had to be bought out by tax-payer money. No one deserves a bonus.
If you work for a company and in your job you make that company $1 million, would it be fair for you to get a $20,000 bonus?
Republican greed caused this economy. That bill aims to force the greedy to pay for the restoration of the economy.
I know you rightwingers hate being held responsible for your illicit actions.. but too bad.
You people did this and you can pay to fix it.
Yeah, because lowering capital gains and eliminating the death tax did wonders... for Paris Hilton.
Some people on this board really have no concept of what true wealth really is and how it is spent... and misspent.
Most jobs don't pay based on the value of the employee. They pay based on what they employee is willing to work for.
There's also the issue of what does the company do when you lose the company $1 million? Does the employee pay the company money? Of course not. So even if salary was based on employee salary, you'd have to consider the bad years as well as the good to figure out how to give out bonuses.
Good, go for it,less money our grand kids will have to pay.:2wave:
What a load of utter bull****!:rofl
Might want to go to a sports forum or something that moves a little slower.
All skilled labor jobs pay based on the value of the employee. Employing people is just like anything else, you get what you pay for.
You may want to review the housing practices "Ownership Society" under the Bush Administration as well as the partial repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act under Clinton.
And if we simply look at the time table, it's pretty clear. The recession hit in late 2007. Subprime mortgages have generally 2-3 year introductory rates. So that's late 2004 and 2005 as to when most of these people got their mortgages, clearly all Republican years. Note, that's not saying they caused the mess, but it's rather hard to blame the Democrats who were a shut out minority from it. Did the Democrats fail to mitigate when they got into power? Absolutely. But did they plant the seeds? The time line says no.
Your extreme partisanism is showing.
No, because this tax can and probably will be increased and will only stifle economic growth, it shouldn't be inacted.
No matter how hard they try, the government isn't going to create wealth.
Check out who was running Fannie and Freddie at the time. Check out Barney Frank and Chris Dodd's role in manipulating and threatening banks to lend to minorities.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?