teamosil
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2009
- Messages
- 6,623
- Reaction score
- 2,226
- Location
- San Francisco
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
complete BS. Gates is wealthy because he engages in activity that other people find useful and are willing to pay him for
Obama said that taxes wouldn't go up. Call it what you want, but this qualifies as, "taxes going up".
More like someone who gives a damn about someone other than themselves and their own prosperity.
My prosperity allows me to be more charitable.
...you're aware that these are the Bush administration's tax cuts expiring, right?
(this belongs in the partisan forum)
Bush's tax cuts were temporary. They're expiring. Saying this is the Obama administration "raising taxes" is incredibly disingenuous. Those tax cuts added about $1.7 trillion to our debt, because they're funded entirely by borrowing money.
Also, you guys have been (incorrectly) calling Cap and Trade the "largest tax increase in history." Which is it?
Thats great, but I see it as having very little to do with why I was responding to Turtle.
You know how I like to talk about my self.....
Ok that made even less sense.
but if you are a low skilled worker should you be having children you cannot pay for?
Not really. If that were the whole story, wouldn't that mean Gates could have done just as well in Somalia? Do you believe that to be true? Even if he had somehow gotten the nutrion and education and whatnot there, he never could have gotten together the employees, the investors, the customers, the security and stability a company like that requires, etc.
Here is another way to look at it. The average productivity of a worker in the US is about $91k per year. The average compensation of a worker in the US is about $44k. So, for each employee Gates bring on, he is gaining $47k a year in value. Now, in Somalia where the education is bad, people are struggling with the basic neccesities, violence is everywhere, etc, the average productivity is less than $1k. So, Microsoft has about 110,000 employees. Realistically, they are almost all well above the average for productivity, but lets just assume they aren't to be on the conservative side. That would still mean that Microsoft is getting $5.2 billion a year more value out their employees here than they would if they were in Somalia. The things that make that possible all cost money- schools, hospitals, police, roads, etc. To ask them to chip in to keep that going just makes sense.
OK so what you are saying is that you hate the right to contract. Because that is the implication of your post.
I raise Corn-one of my business interests. Lets say it costs me 1 dollar a bushel
I advertise corn for 1.50 a bushel
You buy a bushel of corn for that amount. You value the corn at 1.50 a bushel
I make 50 cents profit
why are you entitled to some of that 50 cents? Am I entitled to eat some of the corn you bought?
and what in God's name entitles someone who lives within a certain geo-political distance of me to some of that 50c or to some of the corn you bought?
one of the mistakes income redistributionists make is labouring under the assumption that existing in the same area as a productive person someone contributes to that man's success.
Taxes are the price we pay to live in a civilized society.
The Pope seems to think so.
OK so what you are saying is that you hate the right to contract. Because that is the implication of your post.
I raise Corn-one of my business interests. Lets say it costs me 1 dollar a bushel
I advertise corn for 1.50 a bushel
You buy a bushel of corn for that amount. You value the corn at 1.50 a bushel
I make 50 cents profit
why are you entitled to some of that 50 cents? Am I entitled to eat some of the corn you bought?
and what in God's name entitles someone who lives within a certain geo-political distance of me to some of that 50c or to some of the corn you bought?
one of the mistakes income redistributionists make is labouring under the assumption that existing in the same area as a productive person someone contributes to that man's success.
In order for you complete the transaction above you would require a ton of help from the government. You are using a currency that is maintained by the government, you are hauling the corn on a road that the government paid for, your right to the land the corn was grown on was protected by the government, if the person you sold the corn to just took the corn and refused to pay you, the police and courts are waiting by to intervene on your behalf, the seeds you bought are tested by the government so you know they will make acceptable corn, your corn is certified by the government to be acceptable quality so the purchaser has confidence in the quality of your product, and many of he seeds and equipment and techniques you used to grow the corn reflect years of research and optimization that the government did. If you have a staff at the farm, the government educated them and very possibly helped keep them healthy, fed and housed at some point in the past. Your customer benefited from government spending in a dozen ways like the above as well. The market in which you sell the corn exists and flourishes largely because the government regulates it and keeps it humming along. All that stuff costs money. If the people who benefit from it don't chip in, we couldn't keep providing those services and everything would be a whole lot worse for everybody.
Now, on top of that, of course, your home is also protected, your children can go to school, the police and firemen will show up if you call them, nobody is going to invade the country in which you live, etc, etc.
How about before we target the only people still driving the economy we try something truly revolutionary. We demand government stop their reckless spending. The crippled and dependent pets get off their ass, on their feet, and do whatever it takes to provide for their family. Try...oh...I dont know...doing some of those jobs that immigrants will by damn do to provide for themselves AND their families in their home country. Then...just for fun...lets have all the hypocrite leftist artists sell of their mansions islands and jets, buy a comfortable humble cottage and give the rest to the little people. And let the rich democrats in congress lead by example as well...
I know...its too funny even imagining it.
No...the democrat oliticians will continue to roll in their riches and pander to the crippled dependent pets and pretend they care for them and bank their votes...and lets be honest...they dont even have to try hard...the muppets buy everything.
Oh yes...its the wealthy 1 % that invest and create wealth in this country that are causing the problems...not the pathetic dependent pets and the government spending that has put the country 13.5 trillion in debt.
more crap. You libs find so many excuses to justify making those who work the hardest pay for so many others. If I call the police they don't show up any faster to my house than the guy who only pays 20K a year in taxes
that is a local tax function not based on income ntaxes.
SO you are saying we didn't have markets until we had a confiscatory estate tax and massive income taxes
the BS you people spew is unbelievable. Income taxes were to buy the votes of people like you not to help those of use who do fine without needing nanny state handouts
tax cuts being "tax neutral" is not the issue
the issue is statists claiming that tax cuts have to be paid for
they don't.
Your posts says otherwise.
You stated: "tax cuts never need to be funded." That logically implies you think tax cuts are revenue neutral or positive. No research on the planet worth its ink suggests that with virtually every credible economist, even Reagan's arguing that they are revenue negative.
They do. No real life tax cut is revenue neutral. They all cost money. Thus they all must be paid for sooner or later. Modern day tax cuts are little more then long term notes payable, but the rates are unknown.
Then prove that they are revenue neutral. You know you cannot because they aren't.
This is the sort of thinking or feeling that characterizes the tax hiking government expanding left. I don't have to prove tax cuts are neutral because I don't operate under the belief that peoples' wealth is there to be used for the greater good (however that is defined)
Your position is that as long as a majority of voters (be they tax payers or parasites) want more and more spending, those who pay taxes have a duty to be soaked more and more. Tax cuts don't have to be paid for because they are not spending. What you are really saying is that if we cut taxes we have to find a way to fund the outrageous bloated government someway else. Half of what the government spends is not constitutionally proper to start with.
IF my taxes are cut-and I am still a net tax payer-who is forced to pay for my cuts--the people who don't pay taxes in the first place? LOL. Now tell me-is the government actually paying for all its spending now? Of course not so your ranting that tax cuts have to be paid for is crocodile tears at best. What needs to be taxed are the 47u% who don't pay any federal income taxes yet have a rather large say in who gets voted into office
If I save money I don't have to pay for that. I realize many of you operate under the assumption that wealth first belongs to the government and what is left over those who earn it can keep.
The only way you people can justify confiscatory taxes (and yes, when some have to pay half of their income in taxes-state local and federal that is confiscatory) is that it clearly is for everyone's good (BTW the general welfare is not promoted by taking from some for the benefit of other groups). I have several grounds for opposing a progressive tax and "proving tax cuts are neutral" is not necessary to my position.
Your posts says otherwise.
You stated: "tax cuts never need to be funded." That logically implies you think tax cuts are revenue neutral or positive. No research on the planet worth its ink suggests that with virtually every credible economist, even Reagan's arguing that they are revenue negative.
They do. No real life tax cut is revenue neutral. They all cost money. Thus they all must be paid for sooner or later. Modern day tax cuts are little more then long term notes payable, but the rates are unknown.
Then prove that they are revenue neutral. You know you cannot because they aren't.
Would you consider a "war tax" to pay as you go for the wars or do you think the tax cuts will pay for it?
This is the sort of thinking or feeling that characterizes the tax hiking government expanding left. I don't have to prove tax cuts are neutral because I don't operate under the belief that peoples' wealth is there to be used for the greater good (however that is defined)
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?