Teh Internets
Active member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2010
- Messages
- 351
- Reaction score
- 125
- Location
- Virginia, USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
no they don't using my definition. and I don't buy into yours
Because people like you have run up our national debt so high because of the decreases in taxes while waging four wars at one time and allowed so much of our nations' wealth to be outsourced to China and India and profiting on it while wage earners have had their wealth decrease.
ROFL now it all makes sense.
But it's all ok Turtle Dude don't let mere math get in the way of your truthiness.
that is beyond moronic
why don't you try to remotely prove it. its the entitlement nonsense started with the New Deal that costs the big bucks.
and businesses outsource because of two reasons
1) a business is designed to make a profit
2) and dems have created an environment that retards the making of profits
try again
how does math create a definition
you obviously think revenue and costs are the same thing
I do not
No. It's just as moronic as your stance.
So what you're saying is that in order to better our country economically, we have to have an abused labor underclass similar to India's and China's?
Where did I say that revenue and cost are the same thing? I said that they produce the same result. A decrease in 500 in revenue has the same net value as a increase in cost of 500.
No. It's just as moronic as your stance.
So what you're saying is that in order to better our country economically, we have to have an abused labor underclass similar to India's and China's?
Where did I say that revenue and cost are the same thing? I said that they produce the same result. A decrease in 500 in revenue has the same net value as a increase in cost of 500.
uh that is not responsive. Hiking taxes on the top 2% does not help an abused underclass. Weaning them off of dependency and ending the enabling of social pathologies would go alot farther in improving their lot than buying their votes with handouts and waging war on the wealthy with idiotic tax hikes.
but it is clear you have no clue about the raison d'etre of a corporation and its not to supply you with a job or to pay taxes to greedy bureaucrats
Then why not decrease our costs and let people keep their money to spend, spending money is what get's economy going correct?
People with incomes over 250k aren’t necessarily owners of huge companies with lots of employees and expanding corporations. Some are actually small businesses. To assume that this particular tiny group of small businesses expanded their employee base simply because they paid a few percentile less in income tax is ridiculous.
While the rich can sit on it.. which is exactly what they are doing.
I don't see why creating tax incentives for increased spending in the private sector are not on the table.. IE: If you expand your employment base in your business then you get X % in tax breaks. Ether way the employer is going to be out the money so why not invest it in their assets?
I once heard an economist explain that tax cuts do have a one time positive effect then after that has passed they don’t really have any benefit.
But the suggestion was, if I remember correctly, that the economy normalises in following years and all you have as a result is less tax revenue. This would explain to some degree how economies with much higher taxation can still be very robust.
I see a huge albatross hanging on the US government deficit spending in military spending. The increase in spending on the military is quite nearly viewable as the equivalent of being one big social spending project.
cutting spending on this will just hurt with little to no social benefits derived at all. The US government is spending the same sorts of resources if not more in some cases as a socialist nation but without the positive social benefits.(gdp costs of healthcare is a primary example) Military spending should be cut and cut hard.
Clearly a flat tax would increase the percentage of tax paid on the lower income brackets and put a damper on consumption.
If you could strip away the data to see just how much small private business expanded their enterprises as a direct result of tax breaks for incomes over 250k I do not think you will see much economic benefit or expansion of tax base if any at all comparatively speaking.
Then why not decrease our costs and let people keep their money to spend, spending money is what get's economy going correct?
That's not my my point I don't care if you decrease revenue and reduce spending or increase revenue and increase spending. My point is that tax cuts must be compensated for and effectively always have a cost. No one seems to have refuted that so far.
its funny that those who push for higher taxes on the rich also push for massive social spending
This has pretty much nothing to do with my post.
it has lots the do with the thread though
No, the thread is clearly about the cost of tax cuts, what you are talking about is off topic. If you don't wan't to discuss the cost off tax cuts then go make another thread.
Lowering available revenue is not a cost.
Losing an infantry company in combat is a cost.which is what I have been saying for days yet the wealth stealers ridiculed that concept. The reason why is obvious.
Losing an infantry company in combat is a cost.
Not having that infantry company to begin with is not.
Hey! How many men in a trypical armored cavalry company?a most excellent analogy.
Hey! How many men in a trypical armored cavalry company?
Trick question! Cav units have troops, not companies.don't know-I never was in an armored cavalry company. I'm having lunch with my nephew tomorrow-he'd know-he's back from Iraq and going to Afghanistan in the SF
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?