|
On September 20 2011 09:45 Kiarip wrote:
obama needs to stop making bills. he's so bad at this presidency thing
he'd be better if the republicans didn't try to undermine him on every single issue
|
On September 20 2011 09:49 Supamang wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 09:43 Holophonist wrote:On September 20 2011 09:31 Supamang wrote:On September 20 2011 08:29 Holophonist wrote:On September 20 2011 08:24 Falling wrote:
Well only if you invest 1 billion into one enterprize alone. What's more realistic is it's much easier to lose $10M or $100M. But that's why being wealthy makes it easier to gain more wealth, you have deeper pockets, you can survive a failed business venture, ride out a bad economy and so on and so forth.
But if everything comes down to what is moral, I think the next question that would be reasonable is where does that morality come from? Is it absolute or relative and why should we follow it? Because moralness is a matter "You ought to... or ought not to..." So then given that we can choose to or not, what is our standard and what is our compulsion? Yeah and it's also more realistic that you're only gonna make like $10k instead of $1m. Seriously dude? come on, this is a waste of time. Having money doesn't necessarily raise your EV when investing, it just changes the amounts, in BOTH columns. Well, I personally believe that morality comes from God. But I don't expect other people to agree with me and I also don't expect our laws to directly come from the Bible. I'm a complete minimalist. I think the most moral thing to do is to stay out of people's lives as much as possible... from a government's standpoint. I dont think that Morality and God have any place in this discussion. I cant believe youre arguing your case against progressive tax brackets using Morality as your support base. You say its immoral to take money from someone and give it to someone else. Isnt it also immoral to leave the needy to suffer and die even when it is within your power to help them? Correct me if im wrong, but doesnt Jesus advocate giving to those who need when they ask? If there be among you a poor man of one of thy brethren within any of thy gates in thy land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not harden thine heart, nor shut thine hand from thy poor brother If you argue that it should be left to the individual to give his wealth away, why isnt it up to the individuals running the government to use their power to uphold the Morality of God? By taxing the rich more than taxing the poor, the ones running this country are actually being more Moral than those withholding their wealth from the poor. Right? Basically, forget everything I said earlier and everything you have said about Morality. If you think that letting the rich improves our economy because it allows them to invest and expand businesses more rapidly or whatever other rational reason you have, go ahead and argue that. However, trying to bring in Morals to this discussion is pointless because Morality is subjective. On September 20 2011 08:25 Holophonist wrote:
I'm not going to read through 40 pages of idiocy. Especially considering the fact that I've NEVER heard a good argument for it and I doubt I'm going to find it on a sc2 forum. Oh and dont be that guy...Youre here having a meaningful discussion and youre gonna suggest that people on an SC2 forum cant possibly have the intelligence and/or knowledge to argue with you properly just because youre mad that people disagree with you? Ugh I'l answer your last point first: STOP WASTING MY TIME WITH HYPERBOLE. I didn't say we can't possibly have the intelligence to figure this stuff out. What I actually said was I doubt I'd find it on a SC2 forum. I'd say 80% of what I've written here over the past couple hours is stuff like this. I have to explain myself when I really shouldn't. The terrible inconsistency in your suggestion that the people in power are using their "power" to do what's right is that they're using other people's faculties/resources, not their own. total. waste. of. time. You completely ignored the core of my post LOL. I was saying that its a double standard for you to argue using morals as a base when the people you are defending are being immoral by not giving out their wealth. Basically, Im saying its useless to argue using morals as your support because there are so many standards for morality (even within God) that youre bound to look like a hypocrite its not a "total.waste.of.time", but youre obviously only saying that because youre angry at not having a good argument against me. So you target my afterthought and argue against that for the majority of your post instead of the actual meat of my original argument. You also say that this thread is "40 pages of idiocy" and say that you wont find a good argument on an SC2 forum. How is that NOT suggesting that those on TL.net lack the intelligence to argue against you? Lol, Im not the one slinging around inconsistency, you are.
I left it out because you answered it yourself. The quote you used said nothing about the government making your charitable contributions for you. Your quote... your whole post... is what doesn't have a place in this thread.
And the rich... particularly the rich in the US are among the most charitable people in the history of the planet.
And I said I "doubt" I'll find the answer on a sc2 forum. Because obviously the main reason people are here at all is because of sc2, not because they like to argue economics. It's possible, of course, but I have no reason to think so. again, you're an idiot and you're wasting my time.
I have enough smart people to respond to, I'm not gonna waste any more effort on you, or people like you. fuck off.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On September 20 2011 09:51 oldgregg wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 09:45 Kiarip wrote:
obama needs to stop making bills. he's so bad at this presidency thing he'd be better if the republicans didn't try to undermine him on every single issue
you're right more stimulus and government spending is what we need.
as for the tax increase, it wouldn't be such a big deal if there weren't so many subsidies. The rich already get taxed for like half their income almost.
|
On September 20 2011 10:01 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 09:51 oldgregg wrote:On September 20 2011 09:45 Kiarip wrote:
obama needs to stop making bills. he's so bad at this presidency thing he'd be better if the republicans didn't try to undermine him on every single issue you're right more stimulus and government spending is what we need. as for the tax increase, it wouldn't be such a big deal if there weren't so many subsidies. The rich already get taxed for like half their income almost.
Unless that income is capital gains, or if they make their money in finance in which ALL their income is capital gains.
|
On September 20 2011 09:47 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 08:35 Holophonist wrote:On September 20 2011 08:27 DoubleReed wrote:On September 20 2011 08:18 Holophonist wrote:On September 20 2011 08:11 DoubleReed wrote:
You care about morality even if the economy goes to shit and nobody makes any money whatsoever? The government doesn't function and everything sucks? Please. The reason you're arguing with me is that you disagree that it is good economics, not morality. If you're making bad economic decisions because of morality then I think you don't understand that good economics can help everyone and give everyone a better standard of living.
Okay, rich person puts it into a bank so a poor person can get a mortgage. Or a poor person has the money and doesn't need a mortgage. Which do you think is more efficient? And efficiency is literally all that matters, because as you said, all money is spent.
I never said money makes money on its own. I said it's EASIER for the rich to become richer. It can be difficult next to impossible for the impoverished to make $1 million, but if you already have a billion dollars, then it's not that difficult to make $1 million. That's what I'm saying. That is the extent of what I'm saying. Do you agree? Well I happen to believe you can have a functioning economy while not violating any moral standards. But my tendency would be towards true fairness. Simply because humans are way too flawed to truly be able to pick and choose who gets what. The simplest, most fair way to do things is to remove the government as much as possible while still maintaining a STRICT rule of law. It's NOT just about your idea of what "efficiency" is. The world can't run on convenient stores, dude. Here's an example, should we put every cent in the country into the hands of the "poor" so they can spend it on the so-called "efficient" sectors of the economy? No? Ok, then how much? It's a sliding scale, and you're not qualified to decide where what money goes. Yes it's easier to make $1 million dollars if you already have $1 billion. What you can't grasp is that it's easier to lose $1 billion if you already have $1 billion. Okay, so I don't really see how that is violating moral standards. Hell, taxation in general violates the moral standard of "keep what you earn." THAT is a sliding scale and you're certainly not qualified to decide to make. Like I don't think you understand that "true fairness" can totally fucking suck for everybody. Convenient stores? Who said anything about convenient stores? What the hell are you talking about? I'm talking about small businesses and mortgages just like you are. It sounds like you're just making generalizations about poor people, and it really doesn't help your argument at all. I don't understand your second paragraph. I'm not suggesting anything close to socialism here. I don't know why you are acting like I'm being extreme. Almost any economist would agree that the most efficient sectors of the economy is the middle class, and the status of the middle class is hugely indicative of where the economy will go. If the middle class is horribly in debt (like they are now) then finding ways to inject capital into it will benefit the economy immensely. The last statement is blatantly nonsensical so I have no idea what you're talking about. No. Taxation doesn't violate the idea of keeping what you earn. Because we do recieve quite a bit of services from the government. Where it becomes particularly (and blatantly) immoral is where you take a larger percentage from somebody simply because they can afford it. Like I said before, there's no evidence that the rich use up more of the government services. In fact, they almost certainly use quite a bit less. A convenient store is a small business. The point is you're basically implying (even if you don't mean to) that giving ALL of the money in the US to the low/middle class would be the best thing to do. It ain't. The last statement was purposely nonsensical to point out how nonsensical your concept of how money makes money is. I may be just about done replying to you now because you're saying some pretty dumb stuff. Really? I oppose the military in afghanistan. Do you think it's morally fair to take MY money and spend it on things I don't want or use? I don't have a car. I don't want my money spent on highways. Seriously, you can come up with very good moral arguments against almost everything government does, good or bad. The rich have excess wealth. Literally. That's why they donate it to organizations. I have absolutely nothing against rich people. But if you think taking 1 million out of Warren Buffett's checkbook means he's going to fire someone compared to giving 200k to five small businesses then you're just delusional. Like are you arguing against small businesses? What a silly argument. Seriously, Taking 1.5 Billion Dollars away from Warren Buffett does not affect his livelihood one bit. I know this because he donates in amounts like that. Take 1.5 Billion away from the lower class, and you've just made thousands of people completely and entirely destitute. The fact is, if the economy tanks then we all suffer. The rich suffer AND the poor suffer. So when you talk about morality, you have to talk good economics. No one will "keep what they earn" because no one will earn anything. No, I'm not implying we give all our money to low/middle class. I have no idea where you get that from what I'm saying. What are you talking about? My arguments are not hyperbolic. No, the 1 billion thing is just a dumb statement. The stock market is not the lottery and its not blackjack. You do not need to risk 5 million to make 5 million. Yes, it has risks, but it is not gambling. To Warren Buffett risking 1 million dollars is absolutely nothing. He could risk 100 million, make %1 on that (which is a shitty return btw), and he would make more than 95% of the American people. When you have money, it is much easier to make money. Saying otherwise is ridiculous, especially when you factor in things like education.
you completely flipped what I said.. I said taxes AREN'T immoral. The only thing I'm trying to argue against in this thread is the disparity between the rich's share and the poor/middle class's share. And to clarify, I don't believe the poor/middle class should pay more, I think the rich should pay less and we should spend less.
your last 2 paragraphs truly showcase your ignorance. Everything comes down to careful calculations and RISK. It's not like blackjack, but it is like poker. And, like I said, you can do better in poker if you have a big stack.. but you have to USE IT WELL. It doesn't just accumulate chips on its own. Warren Buffett risking 1 million dollars isn't nothing. If it were, he wouldn't be Warren Buffet. He'd be the old guy that sits on his porch and yells at neighborhood cats... that aren't even there.
|
John Stewart did a package about opponents to Buffet's op-ed. It's pretty funny, but it's also pretty scary to see how ridiculous some of the right-wing pundits are.
|
All the people saying we should reduce taxes on the rich have no better argument than those that say we should increase taxes on the rich. What % level is fair? It's almost impossible to know. In PRINCIPLE, of course you don't want to disintenvize people from working hard and "making the bling", and in PRINCIPLE, of course you don't want to have your hard earned money to go support poor people that may not have worked as hard as you all your life.
Personally, it's obvious to me that the carried interest tax rate on hedge fund managers needs to go and be taxed as ordinary income. You are providing a service of financial management and shouldn't receive a take home pay as if you were an investor investing your own money.
|
I agree that we should stop coddling Warren Buffet.
We can start by taxing 150% of his income until Berkshire Hathaway pays the $1 billion in back taxes it owes Uncle Sam.
Then we can start taxing 10% of the value of his entire assets a year, and drop his income tax.
See how long it takes Warren to understand he's a moron then.
Personally, it's obvious to me that the carried interest tax rate on hedge fund managers needs to go and be taxed as ordinary income. You are providing a service of financial management and shouldn't receive a take home pay as if you were an investor investing your own money.
The point of carried interest and hedge funds is to invest long-term for a big payoff sometime down the road. Taxing it like ordinary income is a great way to scare capital into hiding even in good times.
A government cannot just invent new ways to raise revenue and stick into fingers into pies it previously did not and not expect private investment to plummet.
|
On September 20 2011 10:05 Holophonist wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 09:47 DoubleReed wrote:On September 20 2011 08:35 Holophonist wrote:On September 20 2011 08:27 DoubleReed wrote:On September 20 2011 08:18 Holophonist wrote:On September 20 2011 08:11 DoubleReed wrote:
You care about morality even if the economy goes to shit and nobody makes any money whatsoever? The government doesn't function and everything sucks? Please. The reason you're arguing with me is that you disagree that it is good economics, not morality. If you're making bad economic decisions because of morality then I think you don't understand that good economics can help everyone and give everyone a better standard of living.
Okay, rich person puts it into a bank so a poor person can get a mortgage. Or a poor person has the money and doesn't need a mortgage. Which do you think is more efficient? And efficiency is literally all that matters, because as you said, all money is spent.
I never said money makes money on its own. I said it's EASIER for the rich to become richer. It can be difficult next to impossible for the impoverished to make $1 million, but if you already have a billion dollars, then it's not that difficult to make $1 million. That's what I'm saying. That is the extent of what I'm saying. Do you agree? Well I happen to believe you can have a functioning economy while not violating any moral standards. But my tendency would be towards true fairness. Simply because humans are way too flawed to truly be able to pick and choose who gets what. The simplest, most fair way to do things is to remove the government as much as possible while still maintaining a STRICT rule of law. It's NOT just about your idea of what "efficiency" is. The world can't run on convenient stores, dude. Here's an example, should we put every cent in the country into the hands of the "poor" so they can spend it on the so-called "efficient" sectors of the economy? No? Ok, then how much? It's a sliding scale, and you're not qualified to decide where what money goes. Yes it's easier to make $1 million dollars if you already have $1 billion. What you can't grasp is that it's easier to lose $1 billion if you already have $1 billion. Okay, so I don't really see how that is violating moral standards. Hell, taxation in general violates the moral standard of "keep what you earn." THAT is a sliding scale and you're certainly not qualified to decide to make. Like I don't think you understand that "true fairness" can totally fucking suck for everybody. Convenient stores? Who said anything about convenient stores? What the hell are you talking about? I'm talking about small businesses and mortgages just like you are. It sounds like you're just making generalizations about poor people, and it really doesn't help your argument at all. I don't understand your second paragraph. I'm not suggesting anything close to socialism here. I don't know why you are acting like I'm being extreme. Almost any economist would agree that the most efficient sectors of the economy is the middle class, and the status of the middle class is hugely indicative of where the economy will go. If the middle class is horribly in debt (like they are now) then finding ways to inject capital into it will benefit the economy immensely. The last statement is blatantly nonsensical so I have no idea what you're talking about. No. Taxation doesn't violate the idea of keeping what you earn. Because we do recieve quite a bit of services from the government. Where it becomes particularly (and blatantly) immoral is where you take a larger percentage from somebody simply because they can afford it. Like I said before, there's no evidence that the rich use up more of the government services. In fact, they almost certainly use quite a bit less. A convenient store is a small business. The point is you're basically implying (even if you don't mean to) that giving ALL of the money in the US to the low/middle class would be the best thing to do. It ain't. The last statement was purposely nonsensical to point out how nonsensical your concept of how money makes money is. I may be just about done replying to you now because you're saying some pretty dumb stuff. Really? I oppose the military in afghanistan. Do you think it's morally fair to take MY money and spend it on things I don't want or use? I don't have a car. I don't want my money spent on highways. Seriously, you can come up with very good moral arguments against almost everything government does, good or bad. The rich have excess wealth. Literally. That's why they donate it to organizations. I have absolutely nothing against rich people. But if you think taking 1 million out of Warren Buffett's checkbook means he's going to fire someone compared to giving 200k to five small businesses then you're just delusional. Like are you arguing against small businesses? What a silly argument. Seriously, Taking 1.5 Billion Dollars away from Warren Buffett does not affect his livelihood one bit. I know this because he donates in amounts like that. Take 1.5 Billion away from the lower class, and you've just made thousands of people completely and entirely destitute. The fact is, if the economy tanks then we all suffer. The rich suffer AND the poor suffer. So when you talk about morality, you have to talk good economics. No one will "keep what they earn" because no one will earn anything. No, I'm not implying we give all our money to low/middle class. I have no idea where you get that from what I'm saying. What are you talking about? My arguments are not hyperbolic. No, the 1 billion thing is just a dumb statement. The stock market is not the lottery and its not blackjack. You do not need to risk 5 million to make 5 million. Yes, it has risks, but it is not gambling. To Warren Buffett risking 1 million dollars is absolutely nothing. He could risk 100 million, make %1 on that (which is a shitty return btw), and he would make more than 95% of the American people. When you have money, it is much easier to make money. Saying otherwise is ridiculous, especially when you factor in things like education. you completely flipped what I said.. I said taxes AREN'T immoral. The only thing I'm trying to argue against in this thread is the disparity between the rich's share and the poor/middle class's share. And to clarify, I don't believe the poor/middle class should pay more, I think the rich should pay less and we should spend less. your last 2 paragraphs truly showcase your ignorance. Everything comes down to careful calculations and RISK. It's not like blackjack, but it is like poker. And, like I said, you can do better in poker if you have a big stack.. but you have to USE IT WELL. It doesn't just accumulate chips on its own. Warren Buffett risking 1 million dollars isn't nothing. If it were, he wouldn't be Warren Buffet. He'd be the old guy that sits on his porch and yells at neighborhood cats... that aren't even there.
I was just positing that taxes were immoral, to argue that the moral argument is ridiculous in the first place. Again, I don't really care because I'm talking economics, not morality.
Er. But I never said he didn't have to use it well. I simply said it was much easier for him to make way more money. I never said money generates more money magically. And yes, Warren Buffett risking 1 million dollars IS nothing. He gives away BILLIONS of dollars in charities yearly. Risking 1 million is nothing to him. Hell, Warren Buffett even agrees with me!
|
On September 20 2011 10:10 DeepElemBlues wrote:
I agree that we should stop coddling Warren Buffet.
We can start by taxing 150% of his income until Berkshire Hathaway pays the $1 billion in back taxes it owes Uncle Sam.
Then we can start taxing 10% of the value of his entire assets a year, and drop his income tax.
See how long it takes Warren to understand he's a moron then.
As long as those rules are enforced on everyone and closing tax loopholes is done for all corporations I'm sure he would agree with you too. You two sound like you have a lot in common.
|
As long as those rules are enforced on everyone and closing tax loopholes is done for all corporations I'm sure he would agree with you too. You two sound like you have a lot in common.
I'm sure he wouldn't as even he isn't too dumb to understand that taxing 10% of the value of everyone's total assets a year would destroy the economy. No one has the money to pay that much annually.
|
On September 20 2011 10:12 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 10:05 Holophonist wrote:On September 20 2011 09:47 DoubleReed wrote:On September 20 2011 08:35 Holophonist wrote:On September 20 2011 08:27 DoubleReed wrote:On September 20 2011 08:18 Holophonist wrote:On September 20 2011 08:11 DoubleReed wrote:
You care about morality even if the economy goes to shit and nobody makes any money whatsoever? The government doesn't function and everything sucks? Please. The reason you're arguing with me is that you disagree that it is good economics, not morality. If you're making bad economic decisions because of morality then I think you don't understand that good economics can help everyone and give everyone a better standard of living.
Okay, rich person puts it into a bank so a poor person can get a mortgage. Or a poor person has the money and doesn't need a mortgage. Which do you think is more efficient? And efficiency is literally all that matters, because as you said, all money is spent.
I never said money makes money on its own. I said it's EASIER for the rich to become richer. It can be difficult next to impossible for the impoverished to make $1 million, but if you already have a billion dollars, then it's not that difficult to make $1 million. That's what I'm saying. That is the extent of what I'm saying. Do you agree? Well I happen to believe you can have a functioning economy while not violating any moral standards. But my tendency would be towards true fairness. Simply because humans are way too flawed to truly be able to pick and choose who gets what. The simplest, most fair way to do things is to remove the government as much as possible while still maintaining a STRICT rule of law. It's NOT just about your idea of what "efficiency" is. The world can't run on convenient stores, dude. Here's an example, should we put every cent in the country into the hands of the "poor" so they can spend it on the so-called "efficient" sectors of the economy? No? Ok, then how much? It's a sliding scale, and you're not qualified to decide where what money goes. Yes it's easier to make $1 million dollars if you already have $1 billion. What you can't grasp is that it's easier to lose $1 billion if you already have $1 billion. Okay, so I don't really see how that is violating moral standards. Hell, taxation in general violates the moral standard of "keep what you earn." THAT is a sliding scale and you're certainly not qualified to decide to make. Like I don't think you understand that "true fairness" can totally fucking suck for everybody. Convenient stores? Who said anything about convenient stores? What the hell are you talking about? I'm talking about small businesses and mortgages just like you are. It sounds like you're just making generalizations about poor people, and it really doesn't help your argument at all. I don't understand your second paragraph. I'm not suggesting anything close to socialism here. I don't know why you are acting like I'm being extreme. Almost any economist would agree that the most efficient sectors of the economy is the middle class, and the status of the middle class is hugely indicative of where the economy will go. If the middle class is horribly in debt (like they are now) then finding ways to inject capital into it will benefit the economy immensely. The last statement is blatantly nonsensical so I have no idea what you're talking about. No. Taxation doesn't violate the idea of keeping what you earn. Because we do recieve quite a bit of services from the government. Where it becomes particularly (and blatantly) immoral is where you take a larger percentage from somebody simply because they can afford it. Like I said before, there's no evidence that the rich use up more of the government services. In fact, they almost certainly use quite a bit less. A convenient store is a small business. The point is you're basically implying (even if you don't mean to) that giving ALL of the money in the US to the low/middle class would be the best thing to do. It ain't. The last statement was purposely nonsensical to point out how nonsensical your concept of how money makes money is. I may be just about done replying to you now because you're saying some pretty dumb stuff. Really? I oppose the military in afghanistan. Do you think it's morally fair to take MY money and spend it on things I don't want or use? I don't have a car. I don't want my money spent on highways. Seriously, you can come up with very good moral arguments against almost everything government does, good or bad. The rich have excess wealth. Literally. That's why they donate it to organizations. I have absolutely nothing against rich people. But if you think taking 1 million out of Warren Buffett's checkbook means he's going to fire someone compared to giving 200k to five small businesses then you're just delusional. Like are you arguing against small businesses? What a silly argument. Seriously, Taking 1.5 Billion Dollars away from Warren Buffett does not affect his livelihood one bit. I know this because he donates in amounts like that. Take 1.5 Billion away from the lower class, and you've just made thousands of people completely and entirely destitute. The fact is, if the economy tanks then we all suffer. The rich suffer AND the poor suffer. So when you talk about morality, you have to talk good economics. No one will "keep what they earn" because no one will earn anything. No, I'm not implying we give all our money to low/middle class. I have no idea where you get that from what I'm saying. What are you talking about? My arguments are not hyperbolic. No, the 1 billion thing is just a dumb statement. The stock market is not the lottery and its not blackjack. You do not need to risk 5 million to make 5 million. Yes, it has risks, but it is not gambling. To Warren Buffett risking 1 million dollars is absolutely nothing. He could risk 100 million, make %1 on that (which is a shitty return btw), and he would make more than 95% of the American people. When you have money, it is much easier to make money. Saying otherwise is ridiculous, especially when you factor in things like education. you completely flipped what I said.. I said taxes AREN'T immoral. The only thing I'm trying to argue against in this thread is the disparity between the rich's share and the poor/middle class's share. And to clarify, I don't believe the poor/middle class should pay more, I think the rich should pay less and we should spend less. your last 2 paragraphs truly showcase your ignorance. Everything comes down to careful calculations and RISK. It's not like blackjack, but it is like poker. And, like I said, you can do better in poker if you have a big stack.. but you have to USE IT WELL. It doesn't just accumulate chips on its own. Warren Buffett risking 1 million dollars isn't nothing. If it were, he wouldn't be Warren Buffet. He'd be the old guy that sits on his porch and yells at neighborhood cats... that aren't even there. I was just positing that taxes were immoral, to argue that the moral argument is ridiculous in the first place. Again, I don't really care because I'm talking economics, not morality. Er. But I never said he didn't have to use it well. I simply said it was much easier for him to make way more money. I never said money generates more money magically. And yes, Warren Buffett risking 1 million dollars IS nothing. He gives away BILLIONS of dollars in charities yearly. Risking 1 million is nothing to him. Hell, Warren Buffett even agrees with me!
But you're not even talking sound economics. We don't HAVE to spend as much as we do.
And I said way back like 2 hours ago that of course it's easier to make the second million than the first, but there's an additional level of risk that you didn't have in making the first million. Something you never acknowledge.
|
On September 20 2011 10:14 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +
As long as those rules are enforced on everyone and closing tax loopholes is done for all corporations I'm sure he would agree with you too. You two sound like you have a lot in common.
I'm sure he wouldn't as even he isn't too dumb to understand that taxing 10% of the value of everyone's total assets a year would destroy the economy. No one has the money to pay that much annually.
Yeah except did you know that the people in say, Finland or Norway or any Scandinavian country seem to live just fine despite having gigantic taxrates?
|
On September 20 2011 10:14 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +
As long as those rules are enforced on everyone and closing tax loopholes is done for all corporations I'm sure he would agree with you too. You two sound like you have a lot in common.
I'm sure he wouldn't as even he isn't too dumb to understand that taxing 10% of the value of everyone's total assets a year would destroy the economy. No one has the money to pay that much annually.
You mean you weren't genuine in your proposal? I'm shocked.
|
The biggest difference between warren buffett and most TL posters isn't that he's a billionaire, but that he understand BASIC FUCKING MACROECONOMICS. The reason you can't give rich people a tax cut is because they simple won't use all their money. Reagonomics and the whole idea that rich peopel will invest the money they save is utter bullshit, and is discredited by every economist worth his/her salt.
When people say "investment" , everybody's mind jumps to stocks and bonds. However, for people that live on a paycheck to paycheck basis (I.E, almost everyone), A cut in taxes means more invested towards a higher standard of living for these people, whereas rich people who already buy the most expensive everything are more likely to hold on to their money, and as the saying goes, get richer
|
On September 20 2011 10:18 Shikyo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 10:14 DeepElemBlues wrote:
As long as those rules are enforced on everyone and closing tax loopholes is done for all corporations I'm sure he would agree with you too. You two sound like you have a lot in common.
I'm sure he wouldn't as even he isn't too dumb to understand that taxing 10% of the value of everyone's total assets a year would destroy the economy. No one has the money to pay that much annually. Yeah except did you know that the people in say, Finland or Norway or any Scandinavian country seem to live just fine despite having gigantic taxrates?
People want more from their government so they pay more for it happily so. People want everything they already have in the US but don't want to pay for what it costs now let alone more for it XD. Although this is a rough generalization difference between the US and a small country is not only the amount of money that flows though, but the size and differences in how money is made from one region to the next.
|
Yeah except did you know that the people in say, Finland or Norway or any Scandinavian country seem to live just fine despite having gigantic taxrates?
All of which are vastly different countries geographically and demographically and economically from the United States, what you're saying is an argument decades old it wasn't convincing all through that time and it isn't now.
Anyway they don't even have tax rates as high as what I said in any of those countries, 10% of the value of all your assets would destroy everyone above the very poor. For the middle class that would add ten thousand dollars or more a year to their taxes and for the rich who knows.
The biggest difference between warren buffett and most TL posters isn't that he's a billionaire, but that he understand BASIC FUCKING MACROECONOMICS. The reason you can't give rich people a tax cut is because they simple won't use all their money. Reagonomics and the whole idea that rich peopel will invest the money they save is utter bullshit, and is discredited by every economist worth his/her salt.
When people say "investment" , everybody's mind jumps to stocks and bonds. However, for people that live on a paycheck to paycheck basis (I.E, almost everyone), A cut in taxes means more invested towards a higher standard of living for these people, whereas rich people who already buy the most expensive everything are more likely to hold on to their money, and as the saying goes, get richer
Do we really have to go back to full-bore stagflation before you people stop with your assertions about basic macroeconomics? As if Jimmy Carter and the last two years weren't bad enough...
|
On September 20 2011 10:17 Holophonist wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 10:12 DoubleReed wrote:On September 20 2011 10:05 Holophonist wrote:On September 20 2011 09:47 DoubleReed wrote:On September 20 2011 08:35 Holophonist wrote:On September 20 2011 08:27 DoubleReed wrote:On September 20 2011 08:18 Holophonist wrote:On September 20 2011 08:11 DoubleReed wrote:
You care about morality even if the economy goes to shit and nobody makes any money whatsoever? The government doesn't function and everything sucks? Please. The reason you're arguing with me is that you disagree that it is good economics, not morality. If you're making bad economic decisions because of morality then I think you don't understand that good economics can help everyone and give everyone a better standard of living.
Okay, rich person puts it into a bank so a poor person can get a mortgage. Or a poor person has the money and doesn't need a mortgage. Which do you think is more efficient? And efficiency is literally all that matters, because as you said, all money is spent.
I never said money makes money on its own. I said it's EASIER for the rich to become richer. It can be difficult next to impossible for the impoverished to make $1 million, but if you already have a billion dollars, then it's not that difficult to make $1 million. That's what I'm saying. That is the extent of what I'm saying. Do you agree? Well I happen to believe you can have a functioning economy while not violating any moral standards. But my tendency would be towards true fairness. Simply because humans are way too flawed to truly be able to pick and choose who gets what. The simplest, most fair way to do things is to remove the government as much as possible while still maintaining a STRICT rule of law. It's NOT just about your idea of what "efficiency" is. The world can't run on convenient stores, dude. Here's an example, should we put every cent in the country into the hands of the "poor" so they can spend it on the so-called "efficient" sectors of the economy? No? Ok, then how much? It's a sliding scale, and you're not qualified to decide where what money goes. Yes it's easier to make $1 million dollars if you already have $1 billion. What you can't grasp is that it's easier to lose $1 billion if you already have $1 billion. Okay, so I don't really see how that is violating moral standards. Hell, taxation in general violates the moral standard of "keep what you earn." THAT is a sliding scale and you're certainly not qualified to decide to make. Like I don't think you understand that "true fairness" can totally fucking suck for everybody. Convenient stores? Who said anything about convenient stores? What the hell are you talking about? I'm talking about small businesses and mortgages just like you are. It sounds like you're just making generalizations about poor people, and it really doesn't help your argument at all. I don't understand your second paragraph. I'm not suggesting anything close to socialism here. I don't know why you are acting like I'm being extreme. Almost any economist would agree that the most efficient sectors of the economy is the middle class, and the status of the middle class is hugely indicative of where the economy will go. If the middle class is horribly in debt (like they are now) then finding ways to inject capital into it will benefit the economy immensely. The last statement is blatantly nonsensical so I have no idea what you're talking about. No. Taxation doesn't violate the idea of keeping what you earn. Because we do recieve quite a bit of services from the government. Where it becomes particularly (and blatantly) immoral is where you take a larger percentage from somebody simply because they can afford it. Like I said before, there's no evidence that the rich use up more of the government services. In fact, they almost certainly use quite a bit less. A convenient store is a small business. The point is you're basically implying (even if you don't mean to) that giving ALL of the money in the US to the low/middle class would be the best thing to do. It ain't. The last statement was purposely nonsensical to point out how nonsensical your concept of how money makes money is. I may be just about done replying to you now because you're saying some pretty dumb stuff. Really? I oppose the military in afghanistan. Do you think it's morally fair to take MY money and spend it on things I don't want or use? I don't have a car. I don't want my money spent on highways. Seriously, you can come up with very good moral arguments against almost everything government does, good or bad. The rich have excess wealth. Literally. That's why they donate it to organizations. I have absolutely nothing against rich people. But if you think taking 1 million out of Warren Buffett's checkbook means he's going to fire someone compared to giving 200k to five small businesses then you're just delusional. Like are you arguing against small businesses? What a silly argument. Seriously, Taking 1.5 Billion Dollars away from Warren Buffett does not affect his livelihood one bit. I know this because he donates in amounts like that. Take 1.5 Billion away from the lower class, and you've just made thousands of people completely and entirely destitute. The fact is, if the economy tanks then we all suffer. The rich suffer AND the poor suffer. So when you talk about morality, you have to talk good economics. No one will "keep what they earn" because no one will earn anything. No, I'm not implying we give all our money to low/middle class. I have no idea where you get that from what I'm saying. What are you talking about? My arguments are not hyperbolic. No, the 1 billion thing is just a dumb statement. The stock market is not the lottery and its not blackjack. You do not need to risk 5 million to make 5 million. Yes, it has risks, but it is not gambling. To Warren Buffett risking 1 million dollars is absolutely nothing. He could risk 100 million, make %1 on that (which is a shitty return btw), and he would make more than 95% of the American people. When you have money, it is much easier to make money. Saying otherwise is ridiculous, especially when you factor in things like education. you completely flipped what I said.. I said taxes AREN'T immoral. The only thing I'm trying to argue against in this thread is the disparity between the rich's share and the poor/middle class's share. And to clarify, I don't believe the poor/middle class should pay more, I think the rich should pay less and we should spend less. your last 2 paragraphs truly showcase your ignorance. Everything comes down to careful calculations and RISK. It's not like blackjack, but it is like poker. And, like I said, you can do better in poker if you have a big stack.. but you have to USE IT WELL. It doesn't just accumulate chips on its own. Warren Buffett risking 1 million dollars isn't nothing. If it were, he wouldn't be Warren Buffet. He'd be the old guy that sits on his porch and yells at neighborhood cats... that aren't even there. I was just positing that taxes were immoral, to argue that the moral argument is ridiculous in the first place. Again, I don't really care because I'm talking economics, not morality. Er. But I never said he didn't have to use it well. I simply said it was much easier for him to make way more money. I never said money generates more money magically. And yes, Warren Buffett risking 1 million dollars IS nothing. He gives away BILLIONS of dollars in charities yearly. Risking 1 million is nothing to him. Hell, Warren Buffett even agrees with me! But you're not even talking sound economics. We don't HAVE to spend as much as we do. And I said way back like 2 hours ago that of course it's easier to make the second million than the first, but there's an additional level of risk that you didn't have in making the first million. Something you never acknowledge.
What is unsound in my economics? What do you want to cut? I'm not saying the government isn't bloated, but there are a lot of jobs in the government right now. Making too large cuts means there's a lot of people that are suddenly unemployed. I mean FFS Warren Buffett agrees with me and he knows a hell of a lot more about economics than both of us.
There's no risk in making the first million? Where the bloody hell did you get that from? You go and try make $1 million dollars without risking anything.
I do not acknowledge the risk because the level of wealth we are talking about is people who can easily afford it anyway. It's not as big a risk to them. Also, I don't really see how the risk alters my point in any way.
|
On September 20 2011 10:01 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 09:51 oldgregg wrote:On September 20 2011 09:45 Kiarip wrote:
obama needs to stop making bills. he's so bad at this presidency thing he'd be better if the republicans didn't try to undermine him on every single issue you're right more stimulus and government spending is what we need. as for the tax increase, it wouldn't be such a big deal if there weren't so many subsidies. The rich already get taxed for like half their income almost.
Did you read the article in the OP? The whole point was that the real tax rate they pay is very low. You can argue that they should have low taxes because they create jobs if you like, that's a separate issue, but they most certainly do not pay half their income.
I don't like subsidies either, for the record. 
|
On September 20 2011 09:13 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 09:00 Kiarip wrote:
aren't the rich people the ones that can just get up and leave though?
If you tax them too much they can go live somewhere else where they would get taxed less. This exact question was answered in a youtube video earlier, I believe by Buffet. The US is where the business is. If you wish to do business in the US they force you to pay tax in the US and because everyone wants to they go along with it. While the United States is the sole economic superpower in the world there is simply nowhere to go.
Actually, there are places to go. Where do you think the jobs have been going ? Those jobs are being created in foreign countries because rich people and smart corporations realize they are better off by investing outside the U.S. This is the basis for the whole tax holiday on re-patriated profits. The U.S. imposes taxes on those profits earned out of the country when they are brought back to the U.S., and so all this capital generated is being kept offshore to prevent paying this tax. So, it's not really accurate to say people have nowhere to go, at least their money can be anywhere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
