|
On October 17 2011 01:58 TangJuice wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 01:40 hoganftw wrote:
The real problem is that we spend so much money on other countries that there's no way we can possibly make up our debt, regardless of huge tax increases. When you have bases in 130 countries and a perpetual war on terror, there's nothing you can really do about it besides significantly cut spending. After that, we can focus on increasing taxes and working on our debt from there. If by spending money on other countries you mean blowing them up in order to secure natural resources........ i agree there should be less of that.
you really have no idea what you are talking about, do you even know how much the US gives monetarily to other countries? yes we spend alot of money on the defense budget as well as a shitton on essentially bribes / prop funds to keep certain countries in our favor(pakistan, egypt ect..) or alive (israel) i dont know the exact number but its in the billions if not over a trillion a year
|
Last night I spent some time trying to figure out how we could cut our spending in the unlikely event this 9-9-9 plan became law. During that, I realized something:
How is the economy going to grow when people like me would be forced to make spending cuts? The average American would be paying more money to the government and less money on goods.
|
The 9-9-9 tax plan will have the rich become richer and the poor become poorer.
Argue about the tax plan all you want, but at the end of the day that much is clear.
|
On October 17 2011 02:30 BronzeKnee wrote:
Last night I spent some time trying to figure out how we could cut our spending in the unlikely event this 9-9-9 plan became law. During that, I realized something:
How is the economy going to grow when people like me would be forced to make spending cuts? The average American would be paying more money to the government and less money on goods.
The upper 1% would have more money, which they could then use to keep in banks and continue to not spend.
That helps the economy, right?
Right?
Oh it doesn't?
I thought...
Okay.
It doesn't help the economy.
|
On October 17 2011 02:26 0neder wrote:One of the problems in our country is that not every citizen is 'equally invested' in terms of voting. We need to promote more involvement in the public area. One way to do this is to give everyone a tax responsibility. One improvement to the tax code would be to make everyone pay something. Keep the tiers, but make the bottom tier pay 1%. This would promote active engagement in the political process rather than benefitting from tax money, wholly ignorant and unaffected by anything.
That's just nonsense. The fact that they depend on state legislation for their own survival means they have more than enough incentive to get involved and engaged in the political system. Everyone in the country is neck-deep in incentive in some way. It's not taxes that gets people involved. It's education. Most people don't vote, not because they don't give a shit, but because they haven't got a godamned clue what's going on.
|
On October 17 2011 02:22 Chargelot wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 02:21 Silidons wrote:
my father pays about 30% of his income, he is a democrat, but he actually likes the 9/9/9. he says he's not going to even vote this year because he doesn't like any of the democratic candidates and in my state the primaries are closed party so he can't vote for a republican Read: Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 02:05 Steveh wrote:
most of you people need a lesson on what is your marginal tax rate and what is your 'average' tax rate.
just because you are in the 25% or 30% bracket certainly does not mean you pay 25% or 30% on your 'total income'. the fact any of you so called 'taxpayers' would assume that shows that you're either lying about your income or you've never taken one look at a 1040.
-the system is progressive, meaning your income is taxed at different rates as it exceeds the brackets ranges (1st x dollars is taxed at x %, go look at a tax schedule for the exact amounts)
-you have plenty of deductions and credits that reduce your taxable income
-there's plenty of non-taxable or special tax rates for different kinds of income
so, if you're in the 25% bracket, you aren't paying 25% to the federal government. its lower, most likely in the teens. if you don't believe me, take a look at your the tax you owe on your most recent 1040 and divide it by your total income (i forget the line numbers). you'll be amazed
this only addresses one part of cain's 9-9-9 but it appears people are most confused over it.
9/9/9 would most likely increase how much your father pays.
No, my father does not pay actually less tax than that, he is a realtor and when he signs away $100,000 he is actually paying that in tax. He doesn't get a bunch benefits and shit other people get since he is a Realtor, the only non-taxable income he has is shit that has to go towards his business which is not a lot of shit since the main thing a Realtor does is go on the computer, talk on the phone, do paperwork, and drive around.
My family would be doing a hell of a lot better if we paid in the teens. But whats in the bank is whats in the bank, and it's definitely not what it would be if we paid in the teens.
|
On October 17 2011 00:15 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2011 23:59 Darkalbino wrote:
Why should I have to pay capital gains if day trading is my full time self employed job? Why am I the exception to the rule? People who gamble for a living are double taxed too. And like you, they gain money based on luck and chance. You're risking your money and not doing any real work. And of all people, day traders got bailed out by people like me when all of your risky investments didn't work out and the system was about to collapse. I've never risked money in the stock in the market, but apparently I should have since I would have been bailed out. How was that fair at all? Day trading (like gambling) isn't a real job, and it currently wouldn't exist if capitalism worked like it should (no government intrusion, no bailouts, no tariffs, no intellectual rights protected). We should have let all the banks and investment firms fail, and the let old system collapse (and a collapsed system benefits people like me who didn't take risks). But it didn't, because the people who would have lost the most were the ones who created the system (the rich) and are involved heavily in government. They bailed themselves out. We both took separate paths, your's didn't work out, so you cannibalized my path? How was that fair? You my friend, are living off welfare.
You are so uninformed it makes my brain explode. Where to begin...
Lets start off with the fact that Daytrading is NOT gambling. As with all market investing there IS an element of uncertainty, but how is that different from long term investing? Its not like daytraders just flip a coin (markets can only go up and down, that'd be 50/50 right?!) If you want to argue that its gambling whatever as with most people I've had this conversation with there will be no way to change your mind - moving on.
Now for the fun... DAYTRADERS GET BAILED OUT BY PEOPLE LIKE YOU? GO AHEAD AND FIND THIS FOR ME ROFL.
Banks got bailed out, not day traders. When our risky investments blow up, WE BLOW UP.
Your so miss informed it makes my brain explode.
How is my job not a job? I profit from market fluctuations and inefficiencies, JUST LIKE A LONG TERM INVESTOR I just use different techniques and different time frames. I make 100% educated thought out INVESTMENTS (Trading or "Trades" are just a term used to describe short term buying and selling, but all in all, its still an INVESTMENT). By your definition ANYONE involved in capital markets (they all have risk of default, thus uncertainty, thus by your definition they're gambling).
Oh yeah, capitalism without capital markets...ROFL.
I do not live on welfare, the system GIVES ME nothing. I dont get a bailout when I (Or my firm) explode. I invest smarter than other people in the market (Its a 0 sum game), thus I pull out a profit, just like a long term investor.
That being said, I DONT agree with large risk taking desks on the banks getting full bailouts.
And traders already benefit just fine by being classified as traders (we dont apply to the "wash sale" IRS rule. Traders DONT need any additional taxation breaks, the current system of capital gains + income tax is fine (I'll be fine if the bush cap gain taxes expire). If the elimination of capital gains were to go through, we should be taxed just like everyone else on income.
|
On October 17 2011 02:30 BronzeKnee wrote:
Last night I spent some time trying to figure out how we could cut our spending in the unlikely event this 9-9-9 plan became law. During that, I realized something:
How is the economy going to grow when people like me would be forced to make spending cuts? The average American would be paying more money to the government and less money on goods.
And good luck to the middle class for saving up for college tuition for kids. Oh yeah, and no tax credits when that comes around.
This is not to mention the loss of tax revenue on much of the rich, who would pay less taxes under 9/9/9. So given our national budget deficits, maybe 9/9/9 becomes like 10/11/10 in the future or higher!
|
On October 17 2011 02:34 Chargelot wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 02:30 BronzeKnee wrote:
Last night I spent some time trying to figure out how we could cut our spending in the unlikely event this 9-9-9 plan became law. During that, I realized something:
How is the economy going to grow when people like me would be forced to make spending cuts? The average American would be paying more money to the government and less money on goods. The upper 1% would have more money, which they could then use to keep in banks and continue to not spend. That helps the economy, right? Right? Oh it doesn't? I thought... Okay. It doesn't help the economy.
Haha. I'd like to add to this.
Tax cuts to the rich hardly help the economy. Imagine if you were rich and owned a Ketchup factory. You get a huge tax cut (as does everyone else who is rich) but how much ketchup do rich people need? Just one bottle, so the demand for Ketchup doesn't go up, so why would you hire more workers? You wouldn't you'd pocket the tax cut money.
But if the tax cut money went the poor instead, some people who couldn't afford ketchup would buy ketchup and thus the demand for ketchup would increase. So you might need to hire more people to produce more ketchup and the people you hire are unemployed, and maybe they didn't buy ketchup are now buying ketchup.
And the cycle continues. Adding people to the pool of consumers is the best way to improve the economy.
|
On October 17 2011 02:39 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 02:34 Chargelot wrote:On October 17 2011 02:30 BronzeKnee wrote:
Last night I spent some time trying to figure out how we could cut our spending in the unlikely event this 9-9-9 plan became law. During that, I realized something:
How is the economy going to grow when people like me would be forced to make spending cuts? The average American would be paying more money to the government and less money on goods. The upper 1% would have more money, which they could then use to keep in banks and continue to not spend. That helps the economy, right? Right? Oh it doesn't? I thought... Okay. It doesn't help the economy. Haha. I'd like to add to this. Tax cuts to the rich never help the economy. Imagine if you were rich and owned a Ketchup factory. You get a huge tax cut (as does everyone else who is rich) but how much ketchup do rich people need? Just one bottle, so the demand for Ketchup doesn't go up, so why would you hire more workers? You wouldn't you'd pocket the tax cut money. But if the tax cut money went the poor instead, some people who couldn't afford ketchup would buy ketchup and thus the demand for ketchup would increase. So you might need to hire more people to produce more ketchup and the people you hire are unemployed, and maybe they didn't buy ketchup are now buying ketchup. And the cycle continues.
Nah, it's just a huge coincidence that the Great Depression and this recent recession hit us during America's two periods of enormous wealth inequality. La-la-la-la-la-la-la.
|
On October 17 2011 02:39 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 02:34 Chargelot wrote:On October 17 2011 02:30 BronzeKnee wrote:
Last night I spent some time trying to figure out how we could cut our spending in the unlikely event this 9-9-9 plan became law. During that, I realized something:
How is the economy going to grow when people like me would be forced to make spending cuts? The average American would be paying more money to the government and less money on goods. The upper 1% would have more money, which they could then use to keep in banks and continue to not spend. That helps the economy, right? Right? Oh it doesn't? I thought... Okay. It doesn't help the economy. Haha. I'd like to add to this. Tax cuts to the rich never help the economy. Imagine if you were rich and owned a Ketchup factory. You get a huge tax cut (as does everyone else who is rich) but how much ketchup do rich people need? Just one bottle, so the demand for Ketchup doesn't go up, so why would you hire more workers? You wouldn't you'd pocket the tax cut money. But if the tax cut money went the poor instead, some people who couldn't afford ketchup would buy ketchup and thus the demand for ketchup would increase. So you might need to hire more people to produce more ketchup and the people you hire are unemployed, and maybe they didn't buy ketchup are now buying ketchup. And the cycle continues.
Keeping with this ketchup theme - You're assuming that your one ketchup factory provides ALL the ketchup the world needs - perhaps some of the 99% would like some ketchup too?
SO you get the tax break, now you have the opportunity to hire more workers, to make more ketchup to sell ketchup to more people TO MAKE MORE MONEY. Rich people are self interested, if you give them the opportunity to make MORE MONEY by selling MORE Ketchup, they're going to do it.
|
On October 17 2011 02:39 MannerKiss wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 00:15 BronzeKnee wrote:On October 16 2011 23:59 Darkalbino wrote:
Why should I have to pay capital gains if day trading is my full time self employed job? Why am I the exception to the rule? People who gamble for a living are double taxed too. And like you, they gain money based on luck and chance. You're risking your money and not doing any real work. And of all people, day traders got bailed out by people like me when all of your risky investments didn't work out and the system was about to collapse. I've never risked money in the stock in the market, but apparently I should have since I would have been bailed out. How was that fair at all? Day trading (like gambling) isn't a real job, and it currently wouldn't exist if capitalism worked like it should (no government intrusion, no bailouts, no tariffs, no intellectual rights protected). We should have let all the banks and investment firms fail, and the let old system collapse (and a collapsed system benefits people like me who didn't take risks). But it didn't, because the people who would have lost the most were the ones who created the system (the rich) and are involved heavily in government. They bailed themselves out. We both took separate paths, your's didn't work out, so you cannibalized my path? How was that fair? You my friend, are living off welfare. You are so uninformed it makes my brain explode. Where to begin... Lets start off with the fact that Daytrading is NOT gambling. As with all market investing there IS an element of uncertainty, but how is that different from long term investing? Its not like daytraders just flip a coin (markets can only go up and down, that'd be 50/50 right?!) If you want to argue that its gambling whatever as with most people I've had this conversation with there will be no way to change your mind - moving on. Now for the fun... DAYTRADERS GET BAILED OUT BY PEOPLE LIKE YOU? GO AHEAD AND FIND THIS FOR ME ROFL. Banks got bailed out, not day traders. When our risky investments blow up, WE BLOW UP. Your so miss informed it makes my brain explode. How is my job not a job? I profit from market fluctuations and inefficiencies, JUST LIKE A LONG TERM INVESTOR I just use different techniques and different time frames. I make 100% educated thought out INVESTMENTS (Trading or "Trades" are just a term used to describe short term buying and selling, but all in all, its still an INVESTMENT). By your definition ANYONE involved in capital markets (they all have risk of default, thus uncertainty, thus by your definition they're gambling). Oh yeah, capitalism without capital markets...ROFL. I do not live on welfare, the system GIVES ME nothing. I dont get a bailout when I (Or my firm) explode. I invest smarter than other people in the market (Its a 0 sum game), thus I pull out a profit, just like a long term investor. That being said, I DONT agree with large risk taking desks on the banks getting full bailouts. And traders already benefit just fine by being classified as traders (we dont apply to the "wash sale" IRS rule. Traders DONT need any additional taxation breaks, the current system of capital gains + income tax is fine (I'll be fine if the bush cap gain taxes expire). If the elimination of capital gains were to go through, we should be taxed just like everyone else on income.
When the banks got bailed out it, it saved the stock market. Thus if you invested money in X, well the banks finance loans for X, so if the banks go under, then X goes under. And you lose too. It is all connected, look at GM and the relationship between GM, the banks, the insurance industry and government bailout. They are all dependent on each other.
You are dependent on a system that is dependent on the economy never crashing.
Yes, capitalism without capital markets could exist. And it doesn't right now because we bailed out a broken economy.
You're doing your job right now due to the welfare of the tax payers. It wouldn't (and shouldn't) exist if we live in a system that was truly capitalism (in the sense of Adam Smith Capitalism). You live on welfare, congratulations.
|
On October 17 2011 02:35 Silidons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 02:22 Chargelot wrote:On October 17 2011 02:21 Silidons wrote:
my father pays about 30% of his income, he is a democrat, but he actually likes the 9/9/9. he says he's not going to even vote this year because he doesn't like any of the democratic candidates and in my state the primaries are closed party so he can't vote for a republican Read: On October 17 2011 02:05 Steveh wrote:
most of you people need a lesson on what is your marginal tax rate and what is your 'average' tax rate.
just because you are in the 25% or 30% bracket certainly does not mean you pay 25% or 30% on your 'total income'. the fact any of you so called 'taxpayers' would assume that shows that you're either lying about your income or you've never taken one look at a 1040.
-the system is progressive, meaning your income is taxed at different rates as it exceeds the brackets ranges (1st x dollars is taxed at x %, go look at a tax schedule for the exact amounts)
-you have plenty of deductions and credits that reduce your taxable income
-there's plenty of non-taxable or special tax rates for different kinds of income
so, if you're in the 25% bracket, you aren't paying 25% to the federal government. its lower, most likely in the teens. if you don't believe me, take a look at your the tax you owe on your most recent 1040 and divide it by your total income (i forget the line numbers). you'll be amazed
this only addresses one part of cain's 9-9-9 but it appears people are most confused over it.
9/9/9 would most likely increase how much your father pays. No, my father does not pay actually less tax than that, he is a realtor and when he signs away $100,000 he is actually paying that in tax. He doesn't get a bunch benefits and shit other people get since he is a Realtor, the only non-taxable income he has is shit that has to go towards his business which is not a lot of shit since the main thing a Realtor does is go on the computer, talk on the phone, do paperwork, and drive around. My family would be doing a hell of a lot better if we paid in the teens. But whats in the bank is whats in the bank, and it's definitely not what it would be if we paid in the teens.
Assuming $100,000 is accurate.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/GEBW0.png)
You have my sympathies that you're taxed so much, but it doesn't seem like it should hurt your family very much either. Perhaps I'm wrong.
|
On October 17 2011 02:43 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 02:39 MannerKiss wrote:On October 17 2011 00:15 BronzeKnee wrote:On October 16 2011 23:59 Darkalbino wrote:
Why should I have to pay capital gains if day trading is my full time self employed job? Why am I the exception to the rule? People who gamble for a living are double taxed too. And like you, they gain money based on luck and chance. You're risking your money and not doing any real work. And of all people, day traders got bailed out by people like me when all of your risky investments didn't work out and the system was about to collapse. I've never risked money in the stock in the market, but apparently I should have since I would have been bailed out. How was that fair at all? Day trading (like gambling) isn't a real job, and it currently wouldn't exist if capitalism worked like it should (no government intrusion, no bailouts, no tariffs, no intellectual rights protected). We should have let all the banks and investment firms fail, and the let old system collapse (and a collapsed system benefits people like me who didn't take risks). But it didn't, because the people who would have lost the most were the ones who created the system (the rich) and are involved heavily in government. They bailed themselves out. We both took separate paths, your's didn't work out, so you cannibalized my path? How was that fair? You my friend, are living off welfare. You are so uninformed it makes my brain explode. Where to begin... Lets start off with the fact that Daytrading is NOT gambling. As with all market investing there IS an element of uncertainty, but how is that different from long term investing? Its not like daytraders just flip a coin (markets can only go up and down, that'd be 50/50 right?!) If you want to argue that its gambling whatever as with most people I've had this conversation with there will be no way to change your mind - moving on. Now for the fun... DAYTRADERS GET BAILED OUT BY PEOPLE LIKE YOU? GO AHEAD AND FIND THIS FOR ME ROFL. Banks got bailed out, not day traders. When our risky investments blow up, WE BLOW UP. Your so miss informed it makes my brain explode. How is my job not a job? I profit from market fluctuations and inefficiencies, JUST LIKE A LONG TERM INVESTOR I just use different techniques and different time frames. I make 100% educated thought out INVESTMENTS (Trading or "Trades" are just a term used to describe short term buying and selling, but all in all, its still an INVESTMENT). By your definition ANYONE involved in capital markets (they all have risk of default, thus uncertainty, thus by your definition they're gambling). Oh yeah, capitalism without capital markets...ROFL. I do not live on welfare, the system GIVES ME nothing. I dont get a bailout when I (Or my firm) explode. I invest smarter than other people in the market (Its a 0 sum game), thus I pull out a profit, just like a long term investor. That being said, I DONT agree with large risk taking desks on the banks getting full bailouts. And traders already benefit just fine by being classified as traders (we dont apply to the "wash sale" IRS rule. Traders DONT need any additional taxation breaks, the current system of capital gains + income tax is fine (I'll be fine if the bush cap gain taxes expire). If the elimination of capital gains were to go through, we should be taxed just like everyone else on income. When the banks got bailed out it, it saved the stock market. Thus if you invested money in X, well the banks finance loans for X, so if the banks go under, then X goes under. And you lose too. Yes, capitalism without capital markets could exist. And it doesn't right now because we bailed out a broken economy. You're doing your job right now due to the welfare of the tax payers. You live on welfare, congratulations.
Yeah, the stock market got bailed out, including the investments (PENSIONS 401ks) of Hundreds of millions of Americans. I live on welfare no more than you do.
EDIT: And had i been a bad trader during that time of market turmoil, I would have blown my account up, lost my principal (capital) gone bust and bankrupt. You have NO idea what you're talking about.
|
I have no investments. All of my money is in FDIC insured accounts, as it should be (which is a form of welfare), but if it wasn't in FDIC insured accounts, then it would be under my mattress. FDIC accounts were created to take risk out of saving, and no one used them.
That wasn't the governments fault, everyone should have lost money who risked in any way in the stock market. Does that mean millions of people including the retired lose their savings? Sure, but they risked their savings, it was their own fault.
You are like one of the corporate farmers in America, who are literally subsidized by the US government. Your job would not exist if the industry wasn't bailed out.
|
That 9% federal sales tax means that up here in the Washington state... we'll pay... 19% in sales tax. Yay!
|
On October 17 2011 02:43 MannerKiss wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 02:39 BronzeKnee wrote:On October 17 2011 02:34 Chargelot wrote:On October 17 2011 02:30 BronzeKnee wrote:
Last night I spent some time trying to figure out how we could cut our spending in the unlikely event this 9-9-9 plan became law. During that, I realized something:
How is the economy going to grow when people like me would be forced to make spending cuts? The average American would be paying more money to the government and less money on goods. The upper 1% would have more money, which they could then use to keep in banks and continue to not spend. That helps the economy, right? Right? Oh it doesn't? I thought... Okay. It doesn't help the economy. Haha. I'd like to add to this. Tax cuts to the rich never help the economy. Imagine if you were rich and owned a Ketchup factory. You get a huge tax cut (as does everyone else who is rich) but how much ketchup do rich people need? Just one bottle, so the demand for Ketchup doesn't go up, so why would you hire more workers? You wouldn't you'd pocket the tax cut money. But if the tax cut money went the poor instead, some people who couldn't afford ketchup would buy ketchup and thus the demand for ketchup would increase. So you might need to hire more people to produce more ketchup and the people you hire are unemployed, and maybe they didn't buy ketchup are now buying ketchup. And the cycle continues. Keeping with this ketchup theme - You're assuming that your one ketchup factory provides ALL the ketchup the world needs - perhaps some of the 99% would like some ketchup too? SO you get the tax break, now you have the opportunity to hire more workers, to make more ketchup to sell ketchup to more people TO MAKE MORE MONEY. Rich people are self interested, if you give them the opportunity to make MORE MONEY by selling MORE Ketchup, they're going to do it.
What? Why should they go to the effort of giving more people at the bottom money, so they can provide jobs for those people, so they can produce more ketchup, so they can sell that ketchup to more people...when they can just get their immediate taxes lowered?
That's a level of long-term thinking not reserved for human beings.
|
On October 17 2011 02:49 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 02:43 MannerKiss wrote:On October 17 2011 02:39 BronzeKnee wrote:On October 17 2011 02:34 Chargelot wrote:On October 17 2011 02:30 BronzeKnee wrote:
Last night I spent some time trying to figure out how we could cut our spending in the unlikely event this 9-9-9 plan became law. During that, I realized something:
How is the economy going to grow when people like me would be forced to make spending cuts? The average American would be paying more money to the government and less money on goods. The upper 1% would have more money, which they could then use to keep in banks and continue to not spend. That helps the economy, right? Right? Oh it doesn't? I thought... Okay. It doesn't help the economy. Haha. I'd like to add to this. Tax cuts to the rich never help the economy. Imagine if you were rich and owned a Ketchup factory. You get a huge tax cut (as does everyone else who is rich) but how much ketchup do rich people need? Just one bottle, so the demand for Ketchup doesn't go up, so why would you hire more workers? You wouldn't you'd pocket the tax cut money. But if the tax cut money went the poor instead, some people who couldn't afford ketchup would buy ketchup and thus the demand for ketchup would increase. So you might need to hire more people to produce more ketchup and the people you hire are unemployed, and maybe they didn't buy ketchup are now buying ketchup. And the cycle continues. Keeping with this ketchup theme - You're assuming that your one ketchup factory provides ALL the ketchup the world needs - perhaps some of the 99% would like some ketchup too? SO you get the tax break, now you have the opportunity to hire more workers, to make more ketchup to sell ketchup to more people TO MAKE MORE MONEY. Rich people are self interested, if you give them the opportunity to make MORE MONEY by selling MORE Ketchup, they're going to do it. What? Why should they go to the effort of giving more people at the bottom money, so they can provide jobs for those people, so they can produce more ketchup, so they can sell that ketchup to more people...when they can just get their immediate taxes lowered? That's a level of long-term thinking not reserved for human beings.
Yeah, the people that created legacy companies...
Johnson and Johnson
Proctor and gamble
Wal-mart
Microsoft
Apple
(first 5 that came to mind, should I go on?)
...certainly did not have long term self interest in mind that included expanding their companies to create more wealth.
I'm so out of this thread good lord.
|
On October 17 2011 02:47 BronzeKnee wrote:
I have no investments. All of my money is in FDIC insured accounts, as it should be (which is a form of welfare), but if it wasn't in FDIC insured accounts, then it would be under my mattress. FDIC accounts were created to take risk out of saving, and no one used them.
That wasn't the governments fault, everyone should have lost money who risked in any way in the stock market. Does that mean millions of people including the retired lose their savings? Sure, but they risked their savings, it was their own fault.
You are like one of the corporate farmers in America, who are literally subsidized by the US government. Your job would not exist if the industry wasn't bailed out.
My industry would have THRIVED if the markets weren't bailed out. Prop firms can generate money by going SHORT (Profiting from market failures - creating efficiency in the market).
You're so uninformed, brain exploding, etc.
Just to clarify and stay on topic, i AM against the 9-9-9 tax.
You're just confusing Day Trading with unregulated nonsense some of the banks did.
|
On October 17 2011 02:43 MannerKiss wrote:
Keeping with this ketchup theme - You're assuming that your one ketchup factory provides ALL the ketchup the world needs - perhaps some of the 99% would like some ketchup too?
SO you get the tax break, now you have the opportunity to hire more workers, to make more ketchup to sell ketchup to more people TO MAKE MORE MONEY. Rich people are self interested, if you give them the opportunity to make MORE MONEY by selling MORE Ketchup, they're going to do it.
Take my small business. If we got a big tax cut it would do nothing because our sales are slow. Give people more money to buy our products, and our sales will pickup and maybe we'll hire people.
The problem here isn't that people want a product but there isn't enough of it, the problem is there isn't enough consumers and companies are competing over a smaller and smaller pool of them. This is how basic supply and demand works.
You guys really need to read Adam's Smith The Wealth of Nations.
Your thinking is backwards. You seem to think there are lots of people out there who have tons of money to spend and with tax cuts you can just hire more workers and make more stuff and just make tons of money. It doesn't work like that, and I know, because I own a business.
You scale your business (supply) to the demand for your products. Demand controls everything. Occasionally something new and neat comes out (like the first auto, computer, cell phone) that creates a lot of opportunity, but we can't rely on these for a good long term economy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-oHCcm9FfPNo/TWea09x5dPI/AAAAAAAAVP0/2gOvwcnz-jw/s1600/MINT-TAXES-R4.png)
