|
Lol...
Bibdy do you realize that when people keep their money in the banks, that money is used to lend to people, some whom use it to start new businesess, so even if the rich business owners don't try to expand their businesses, and simply invest trying to make more money, or put their money in the banks they are actually helping the economy grow.
The way that they actually DON'T help the economy grow is by going out and SPENDING all their money things like luxury cars, huge houses, and etc. Because they for the most part will only be buying products that already exist, so they are simply using that money on redistribution of wealth (moving car from store to their garage.)
But when they DON'T spend their money that money is lent out by banks...
Even if they keep it all in cash under their bed it helps a BIT because it limits the money supply of the system, thus enhancing the purchasing power of everyone who actually IS willing to spend money, because by not spending they are decreasing demand, which decreases the prices.
Stop with the Keynesianism please... It has been consistently wrong.
|
I think there are plenty of holes in Herman Cain's plan, but I appreciate the simplicity and fairness of it and would love to see other representatives try to make it work.
I feel like I can relate to the OP's situation a bit, because it sounds similar to mine 5 years ago. My wife and I had been married a year and together we were making about the same as him. We started a business, then had 2 children (one is less than 2 weeks now), and now I'm the sole-provider of my family of 4 making ~85k/year.
My feelings about the 999 plan are a bit different though.
The beauty of it for me, is that it enables all income levels to save money. All of the tax credits/deductions the OP described come after the fact - i.e. we pay the federal government 25%-28% of our salaries directly from our paychecks and then at the beginning of the year we pay an accountant or online tax system to try and get it all back for us. At 9% income tax, we would be receiving a 16%-19% boost to all of our paychecks. Assuming that I live check to check, I would still have 7%-10% left over for savings. This means we can benefit from no capital gains tax too! The math adds up for me.
The sad part of this plan is that this windfall of money each paycheck will only be short-term. Once we are used to having a new tax system, prices will change to force people to spend more than they can afford. I can almost guarantee this because of the number of industries that would be affected by the government welfare being removed from their production processes. And history shows that it's easier for corporations to raise prices than to innovate.
Herman Cain's plan is a path to allowing state taxes to become more prominent than national taxes. I don't mind this, in fact I prefer it, but at the same time I recognize that it won't change anything on its own. Whether we attack it from a national side or as individual states it all starts with citizens becoming more accountable for their actions and holding their representatives more accountable.
|
On October 17 2011 04:41 Pillage wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 03:09 Bibdy wrote:On October 17 2011 03:02 MannerKiss wrote:On October 17 2011 03:00 Bibdy wrote:On October 17 2011 02:52 MannerKiss wrote:On October 17 2011 02:49 Bibdy wrote: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. LOL you're comparing investment in one's own assets vs investments in other people's spending habits. Yes, please, go. So, during the tax breaks that happend to those companies they just said "FUCK IT I"M KEEPING ALL THE MONEY! NO HIRING MORE MORE MORE FOR ME?" What? Oh, for crying out loud, we're not talking about businesses, we're talking about individuals. The basic premise of raising taxes on the rich, instead of the poor, is to give the poor more disposable income (equivalent to giving them money from the pockets of the rich) so THEY can keep consuming and keep our consumer-economy running. Doing the OPPOSITE, of raising taxes on the poor instead of the wealthy (equivalent to giving the rich money from the pockets of the poor) would just fuck everybody, because NO, they WON'T invest all of that money in useful things, they'll send a bunch to offshore bank accounts, or offshore investment, hiring more cheap labour across the world, rather than hiring OUR workers, or just plain spending it on various luxuries they don't need, which don't help our economy. We've tried this whole low-taxes-on-the-richest-households thing twice in American history. Do you genuinely think it's just one big, fat coincidence that the Great Depression and this recent recession both occurred during periods of enormous wealth inequality, as a result of those taxation laws? ![[image loading]](http://c1ecolocalizercom.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2010/04/wealthgapchart1.jpg) History has a way of repeating itself, and we're too fucking self-centered and short-sighted to realize it. This is a flawed method of analysis. Almost no economists attributed the Great Depression Crash and the Housing crash to wealth disparity. Instead they usually come to the consensus that flaws in the market (bubbles , poor regulation) coupled with poor monetary policy lead to these events.
And why do you think markets crash, hmm? Oh of course, it has absolutely NOTHING to do with stretching the lower classes so thin to the point they can't purchase anything anymore. It makes perfect sense now, the Great Depression happened because magically, everyone decided to just stop buying stuff!
Utter idiocy. You can't have an upper class without lower classes to sustain them, and if we continue current trends we either reach the point where we have to literally kick the poor out of the country because they're not useful to us anymore (what good is a person who works for a pittance, and then pays all of that in taxes to a government that spends all of that tax money giving them food and a place to live so they can continue to do that work? I'm sure you know what that system is called), or the wealthy and powerful stop screwing over long-term stability for the sake of short-term profit.
|
On October 17 2011 05:23 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 04:41 Pillage wrote:On October 17 2011 03:09 Bibdy wrote:On October 17 2011 03:02 MannerKiss wrote:On October 17 2011 03:00 Bibdy wrote:On October 17 2011 02:52 MannerKiss wrote:On October 17 2011 02:49 Bibdy wrote:On October 17 2011 02:43 MannerKiss wrote:On October 17 2011 02:39 BronzeKnee wrote:On October 17 2011 02:34 Chargelot wrote:
[quote]
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. LOL you're comparing investment in one's own assets vs investments in other people's spending habits. Yes, please, go. So, during the tax breaks that happend to those companies they just said "FUCK IT I"M KEEPING ALL THE MONEY! NO HIRING MORE MORE MORE FOR ME?" What? Oh, for crying out loud, we're not talking about businesses, we're talking about individuals. The basic premise of raising taxes on the rich, instead of the poor, is to give the poor more disposable income (equivalent to giving them money from the pockets of the rich) so THEY can keep consuming and keep our consumer-economy running. Doing the OPPOSITE, of raising taxes on the poor instead of the wealthy (equivalent to giving the rich money from the pockets of the poor) would just fuck everybody, because NO, they WON'T invest all of that money in useful things, they'll send a bunch to offshore bank accounts, or offshore investment, hiring more cheap labour across the world, rather than hiring OUR workers, or just plain spending it on various luxuries they don't need, which don't help our economy. We've tried this whole low-taxes-on-the-richest-households thing twice in American history. Do you genuinely think it's just one big, fat coincidence that the Great Depression and this recent recession both occurred during periods of enormous wealth inequality, as a result of those taxation laws? History has a way of repeating itself, and we're too fucking self-centered and short-sighted to realize it. This is a flawed method of analysis. Almost no economists attributed the Great Depression Crash and the Housing crash to wealth disparity. Instead they usually come to the consensus that flaws in the market (bubbles , poor regulation) coupled with poor monetary policy lead to these events. And why do you think markets crash, hmm? Oh of course, it has absolutely NOTHING to do with stretching the lower classes so thin to the point they can't purchase anything anymore. It makes perfect sense now, the Great Depression happened because magically, everyone decided to just stop buying stuff! Utter idiocy. You can't have an upper class without lower classes to sustain them, and if we continue current trends we either reach the point where we have to literally kick the poor out of the country because they're not useful to us anymore (what good is a person who works for a pittance, and then pays all of that in taxes to a government that spends all of that tax money giving them food and a place to live so they can continue to do that work? I'm sure you know what that system is called), or the wealthy and powerful stop screwing over long-term stability for the sake of short-term profit.
Fine you can ramble on all you want, and the wealth disparity high points may be a result of the crash, but please realize that almost no economists agree with what your theories on why the markets crash. So I'm not inclined to believe them either.
|
If people really want lower taxes they should be voting for Ron Paul.
|
Anyone else misread the title as "A look at the 9-9-9 rax..."? I was thinking "what has TLO done again?!"
|
On October 17 2011 00:33 Chargelot wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 00:29 redmarine wrote:
9%... Seriously? Here in the Faroe Islands we pay around 50% taxes, and as a result everything is pretty much free of charge. How hard is it to read Plexa's post? It's all highlighted and covered in waffles and such. Even if we had 99% taxation, we still wouldn't get half of the crap Europeans get from their government. We still have $14.2T to pay off.
You are getting it wrong. There is nothing free, its all paid for by taxes. It just depends do you have the government spreading money from one person to another and to what degree.
For example the "free" medicine you get in europe is not free, you are paying for it. It works on the premise that you keep paying as long as you can work and that you don't get sick enough and overall the money you put in is more than what the cost of the healthcare would be and so when someone gets really sick there is sort of a cushion of money that is used for his care.
|
9-9-9 is a tax increase on middle and lower income families, and in time would also be a massive tax increase on everyone. You think 9-9-9 is going to stay 9-9-9 like the Income Tax stayed at 1% for the wealthy only? Yeah, right, and I have a box of 1 oz gold coins to sell you for 5$. If you want to reduce taxes, you eliminate the tax completely. Furthermore, you must also severely diminish, reduce, and eliminate Government power. Either the power is in the hands of the individual or the Government. Individual empowerment is always preferable to State-power. So, you diminish the power of the State and return it to individuals thereby making most taxes unnecessary and thus, abolishment of them. We have to curb the appetite of the average American for Nanny-State paternalism & Daddy-State sense of security (Welfare-Warfare). If we fail to do that, arguing over taxes is silly. The spending is the problem, and the spending is the symptom of the appetite for largesse Government. Cain addresses none of these issues.
If you are serious about these issues only Ron Paul addresses them head on and with actual solutions. It's time for America to return to the America De Tocqueville described, and not some machination of Fascist Italy & Euro-State Social Democracy.
|
On October 17 2011 05:15 Kiarip wrote:
Lol...
Bibdy do you realize that when people keep their money in the banks, that money is used to lend to people, some whom use it to start new businesess, so even if the rich business owners don't try to expand their businesses, and simply invest trying to make more money, or put their money in the banks they are actually helping the economy grow.
The way that they actually DON'T help the economy grow is by going out and SPENDING all their money things like luxury cars, huge houses, and etc. Because they for the most part will only be buying products that already exist, so they are simply using that money on redistribution of wealth (moving car from store to their garage.)
But when they DON'T spend their money that money is lent out by banks...
Even if they keep it all in cash under their bed it helps a BIT because it limits the money supply of the system, thus enhancing the purchasing power of everyone who actually IS willing to spend money, because by not spending they are decreasing demand, which decreases the prices.
Stop with the Keynesianism please... It has been consistently wrong.
What? You haven't got the faintest clue what Keynesianism actually is if you think it in any way relates to what I'm talking about. Might want to go learn yourself a book or two.
If any economic system failed to live up to expectations, it was supply-side and trickle-down economics. It's systematically caused an ongoing trend of greater and greater wealth disparity because the top just isn't investing in the bottom. They're investing elsewhere in the world, because, thanks to globalization and improvements in technology, the other side of the world isn't so far away anymore. I get that money sitting in a bank is still useful, that's pretty basic, but apparently you're not smart enough to realize it's not sitting in OUR financial system that WE can make use of. It sits in offshore bank accounts that other countries make use of.
The top keep using the same old rhetoric of "If you tax us, we're just going to leave and then you'll have no jobs". But, the fact of the matter is, they depend on us to do the purchasing for them. So, it should be flipped the other way around, "If you take all of our money from us, we won't be there to buy your shit and allow you to live your affluent lifestyle".
|
On October 17 2011 05:38 Pillage wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 05:23 Bibdy wrote:On October 17 2011 04:41 Pillage wrote:On October 17 2011 03:09 Bibdy wrote:On October 17 2011 03:02 MannerKiss wrote:On October 17 2011 03:00 Bibdy wrote:On October 17 2011 02:52 MannerKiss wrote:On October 17 2011 02:49 Bibdy wrote:On October 17 2011 02:43 MannerKiss wrote:On October 17 2011 02:39 BronzeKnee wrote:
[quote]
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. LOL you're comparing investment in one's own assets vs investments in other people's spending habits. Yes, please, go. So, during the tax breaks that happend to those companies they just said "FUCK IT I"M KEEPING ALL THE MONEY! NO HIRING MORE MORE MORE FOR ME?" What? Oh, for crying out loud, we're not talking about businesses, we're talking about individuals. The basic premise of raising taxes on the rich, instead of the poor, is to give the poor more disposable income (equivalent to giving them money from the pockets of the rich) so THEY can keep consuming and keep our consumer-economy running. Doing the OPPOSITE, of raising taxes on the poor instead of the wealthy (equivalent to giving the rich money from the pockets of the poor) would just fuck everybody, because NO, they WON'T invest all of that money in useful things, they'll send a bunch to offshore bank accounts, or offshore investment, hiring more cheap labour across the world, rather than hiring OUR workers, or just plain spending it on various luxuries they don't need, which don't help our economy. We've tried this whole low-taxes-on-the-richest-households thing twice in American history. Do you genuinely think it's just one big, fat coincidence that the Great Depression and this recent recession both occurred during periods of enormous wealth inequality, as a result of those taxation laws? History has a way of repeating itself, and we're too fucking self-centered and short-sighted to realize it. This is a flawed method of analysis. Almost no economists attributed the Great Depression Crash and the Housing crash to wealth disparity. Instead they usually come to the consensus that flaws in the market (bubbles , poor regulation) coupled with poor monetary policy lead to these events. And why do you think markets crash, hmm? Oh of course, it has absolutely NOTHING to do with stretching the lower classes so thin to the point they can't purchase anything anymore. It makes perfect sense now, the Great Depression happened because magically, everyone decided to just stop buying stuff! Utter idiocy. You can't have an upper class without lower classes to sustain them, and if we continue current trends we either reach the point where we have to literally kick the poor out of the country because they're not useful to us anymore (what good is a person who works for a pittance, and then pays all of that in taxes to a government that spends all of that tax money giving them food and a place to live so they can continue to do that work? I'm sure you know what that system is called), or the wealthy and powerful stop screwing over long-term stability for the sake of short-term profit. Fine you can ramble on all you want, and the wealth disparity high points may be a result of the crash, but please realize that almost no economists agree with what your theories on why the markets crash. So I'm not inclined to believe them either.
*sigh* It's a perfectly well-articulated, valid theory on the cause of the Great Depression. Overinvestment in industry and profits being pushed straight into the stockmarket, rather than invested in people's purchasing power, limited consumers to the point that everything fell apart from the bottom up.
|
The beauty of it for me, is that it enables all income levels to save money. All of the tax credits/deductions the OP described come after the fact - i.e. we pay the federal government 25%-28% of our salaries directly from our paychecks and then at the beginning of the year we pay an accountant or online tax system to try and get it all back for us. At 9% income tax, we would be receiving a 16%-19% boost to all of our paychecks. Assuming that I live check to check, I would still have 7%-10% left over for savings. This means we can benefit from no capital gains tax too! The math adds up for me.
Economists agree that the 9-9-9 would raise taxes on middle class families, up to twice as much as they pay now. (Partly due to elimination of tax breaks for child care, and partly due to the highly regressive sales tax.) Sure it lets you save money, but it's less money than you save right now. And how many middle class families would really benefit from 0% tax on capital gains? That particular tax cut benefits almost exclusively the wealthy.
Don't get me wrong, I desperately want a simpler tax code, but the facts are that the 9-9-9 plan raises taxes on the middle class and cuts taxes on the wealthy. Isn't that the definition of wealth redistribution that conservatives hate so much?
|
On October 17 2011 05:48 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 05:15 Kiarip wrote:
Lol...
Bibdy do you realize that when people keep their money in the banks, that money is used to lend to people, some whom use it to start new businesess, so even if the rich business owners don't try to expand their businesses, and simply invest trying to make more money, or put their money in the banks they are actually helping the economy grow.
The way that they actually DON'T help the economy grow is by going out and SPENDING all their money things like luxury cars, huge houses, and etc. Because they for the most part will only be buying products that already exist, so they are simply using that money on redistribution of wealth (moving car from store to their garage.)
But when they DON'T spend their money that money is lent out by banks...
Even if they keep it all in cash under their bed it helps a BIT because it limits the money supply of the system, thus enhancing the purchasing power of everyone who actually IS willing to spend money, because by not spending they are decreasing demand, which decreases the prices.
Stop with the Keynesianism please... It has been consistently wrong. What? You haven't got the faintest clue what Keynesianism actually is if you think it in any way relates to what I'm talking about. Might want to go learn yourself a book or two. If any economic system failed to live up to expectations, it was supply-side and trickle-down economics. It's systematically caused an ongoing trend of greater and greater wealth disparity because the top just isn't investing in the bottom. They're investing elsewhere in the world, because, thanks to globalization and improvements in technology, the other side of the world isn't so far away anymore. I get that money sitting in a bank is still useful, that's pretty basic, but apparently you're not smart enough to realize it's not sitting in OUR financial system that WE can make use of. It sits in offshore bank accounts that other countries make use of.
Of course, but it's regulation that makes us uncompetitive with the rest of the world.
The top keep using the same old rhetoric of "If you tax us, we're just going to leave and then you'll have no jobs". But, the fact of the matter is, they depend on us to do the purchasing for them. So, it should be flipped the other way around, "If you take all of our money from us, we won't be there to buy your shit and allow you to live your affluent lifestyle".
It's not one or the other. If you really want progressive taxes that's fine, but you should still make them expenditure based. The thing is if you DO take from the rich more than they earn, yeah at some point the rich won't be rich anymore, but the poor won't be in better shape either.
Our workforce needs to be made competitive in order for people to be able to get jobs. Sure, you can say that our standard of living is too high in order for our workforce to be competitive, but that's not the whole story, we also have a ton of regulations many of which are driven by special interests that make our workforce more expensive and less efficient.
|
On October 17 2011 05:48 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 05:15 Kiarip wrote:
Lol...
Bibdy do you realize that when people keep their money in the banks, that money is used to lend to people, some whom use it to start new businesess, so even if the rich business owners don't try to expand their businesses, and simply invest trying to make more money, or put their money in the banks they are actually helping the economy grow.
The way that they actually DON'T help the economy grow is by going out and SPENDING all their money things like luxury cars, huge houses, and etc. Because they for the most part will only be buying products that already exist, so they are simply using that money on redistribution of wealth (moving car from store to their garage.)
But when they DON'T spend their money that money is lent out by banks...
Even if they keep it all in cash under their bed it helps a BIT because it limits the money supply of the system, thus enhancing the purchasing power of everyone who actually IS willing to spend money, because by not spending they are decreasing demand, which decreases the prices.
Stop with the Keynesianism please... It has been consistently wrong. What? You haven't got the faintest clue what Keynesianism actually is if you think it in any way relates to what I'm talking about. Might want to go learn yourself a book or two. If any economic system failed to live up to expectations, it was supply-side and trickle-down economics. It's systematically caused an ongoing trend of greater and greater wealth disparity because the top just isn't investing in the bottom. They're investing elsewhere in the world, because, thanks to globalization and improvements in technology, the other side of the world isn't so far away anymore. I get that money sitting in a bank is still useful, that's pretty basic, but apparently you're not smart enough to realize it's not sitting in OUR financial system that WE can make use of. It sits in offshore bank accounts that other countries make use of. The top keep using the same old rhetoric of "If you tax us, we're just going to leave and then you'll have no jobs". But, the fact of the matter is, they depend on us to do the purchasing for them. So, it should be flipped the other way around, "If you take all of our money from us, we won't be there to buy your shit and allow you to live your affluent lifestyle".
Wealthy disparity is a result of Government spending and Government policy. Giving more money to the Government only exacerbates the disparity. It is a result of a system that has a Central Banking system with Government-enforced legal tender laws / fiat-currencies, regulations which shield large businesses from competition from smaller market entrants (and would-be entrants), and a system of patronage from public coffers (subsidies, bailouts, Government-guarantees (Fannie/Freddie), etc.), etc. etc.
The American economic system has largely been unchanged since the 1920's. Over-time it has become more and more centralized, centrally planned, and onerous (bureaucratic socialism with Corporatism). The problem is in the scope, size, and power of the State. Don't take it from me -- just look at the research of the New Leftists like Gabriel Kolko and William Appleman Williams. The same folks who looked fondly back at the Articles of Confederation for Community empowerment (States 'rights', powers, etc.).
The fact is we have a problem of patronage/cronyism which is a symptom of a Government whose power knows little limits. It is this patronage that comes in the form of bailouts, subsidies, regulatory regimes, grants of privilege and immunity (Federal Reserve, Licensing, etc.), and many other impositions upon free-enterprise.
If the 'left' would look to the actual problem like Kevin Carson & many of the libertarian-left, do, then we could actually have a worthwhile alliance to tackle this problem. If we worked together to end Government power, we would well be on our way to fixing the large disparity we find ourselves stuck with today. The Government has always worked for the wealthy and elite. From North Korea to the USSR to modern-day Germany to the USA, to the Congo and Thailand. Why you would want to give this entity more power which is a de-facto acquiscence of your natural rights and individual empowerment, is quite frankly one of the greatest propaganda successes in history. Right up there with William F. Buckley turning conservatism into Progressivism.
PS: Progressivism being a movement for large business interests.
http://www.amazon.com/Triumph-Conservatism-Gabriel-Kolko/dp/0029166500/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1318799043&sr=8-1
A radically new interpretation of the Progressive Era which argues that business leaders, and not the reformers, inspired the era’s legislation regarding business.
^ Same shit that goes on today. Progressives shielding business from competition through regulatory regimes with such uncritical thinking to not realize that running out the folks who cannot afford these burdens doesn't hurt big business, but helps!
|
I'm sorry.. do you really have a business? because you can deduct 100% of the taxes on the items you buy that are for your business... so I don't get how you think you'll pay more taxes under cain's 999
|
On October 17 2011 05:58 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 05:48 Bibdy wrote:On October 17 2011 05:15 Kiarip wrote:
Lol...
Bibdy do you realize that when people keep their money in the banks, that money is used to lend to people, some whom use it to start new businesess, so even if the rich business owners don't try to expand their businesses, and simply invest trying to make more money, or put their money in the banks they are actually helping the economy grow.
The way that they actually DON'T help the economy grow is by going out and SPENDING all their money things like luxury cars, huge houses, and etc. Because they for the most part will only be buying products that already exist, so they are simply using that money on redistribution of wealth (moving car from store to their garage.)
But when they DON'T spend their money that money is lent out by banks...
Even if they keep it all in cash under their bed it helps a BIT because it limits the money supply of the system, thus enhancing the purchasing power of everyone who actually IS willing to spend money, because by not spending they are decreasing demand, which decreases the prices.
Stop with the Keynesianism please... It has been consistently wrong. What? You haven't got the faintest clue what Keynesianism actually is if you think it in any way relates to what I'm talking about. Might want to go learn yourself a book or two. If any economic system failed to live up to expectations, it was supply-side and trickle-down economics. It's systematically caused an ongoing trend of greater and greater wealth disparity because the top just isn't investing in the bottom. They're investing elsewhere in the world, because, thanks to globalization and improvements in technology, the other side of the world isn't so far away anymore. I get that money sitting in a bank is still useful, that's pretty basic, but apparently you're not smart enough to realize it's not sitting in OUR financial system that WE can make use of. It sits in offshore bank accounts that other countries make use of. Of course, but it's regulation that makes us uncompetitive with the rest of the world. Show nested quote +
The top keep using the same old rhetoric of "If you tax us, we're just going to leave and then you'll have no jobs". But, the fact of the matter is, they depend on us to do the purchasing for them. So, it should be flipped the other way around, "If you take all of our money from us, we won't be there to buy your shit and allow you to live your affluent lifestyle".
It's not one or the other. If you really want progressive taxes that's fine, but you should still make them expenditure based. The thing is if you DO take from the rich more than they earn, yeah at some point the rich won't be rich anymore, but the poor won't be in better shape either. Our workforce needs to be made competitive in order for people to be able to get jobs. Sure, you can say that our standard of living is too high in order for our workforce to be competitive, but that's not the whole story, we also have a ton of regulations many of which are driven by special interests that make our workforce more expensive and less efficient.
Well, that's the thing, we're ALL living beyond the means of what is sustainable right now, but the top is where the source of the problem lies. They control where the money goes after all, and if they keep letting it fly out the door, we're all going to find ourselves with nothing left.
US workforces are competitive because they're a damned sight more productive than foreign labour, but less people care about the less tangible benefits of hiring a US worker to do, say, a software programming project without issue than the lower costs, but logistical and unproductive nightmare that is hiring 6 Indian software programmers to do the same job. They're cheaper, so fuck it, hire those guys, instead! Nevermind the fact that the time-zone difference becomes a burden on communication, the language barrier often gets in the way, nobody is local to directly micromanage problems and mistakes, and before you know it, you've just spent twice as much, and taken twice as long, on the project as you would have done hiring some properly trained and qualified people, who despite wanting health benefits, would have ended up costing you less, to do the job from the get-go. But, the 'promise' of getting the job done in the same time, with half the cost was too tempting. And we fall for that stupid behaviour again and again. Same reason consumers buy some cheap, crappy short lifespan Vaccuum Cleaner rather than a Dyson (frigging love those things). It's easier to sell something on low cost, than high quality.
|
On October 17 2011 01:08 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 01:06 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 17 2011 01:02 BronzeKnee wrote:On October 17 2011 00:56 jdseemoreglass wrote:
People also need to realize that as long as the government is bringing in the same total revenue, people are being taxed the same rate. People as in the whole society sure. But how the tax burden is divided among the individual who make up "people" is a totally different. I would pay a lot more under Herman Cain, as would the average American who makes less than 100,000 (who depends on multiple exemptions and deductions in the current code). People who make a lot of money on investments (like Herman Cain) would save a lot of money due to no capital games tax. Ultimately you are going to have to pay more. It's going to be a necessity to raise taxes on all americans to prevent a complete government default. And people keep repeating this argument about capital gains... it's been going for months now. That's a simple problem to fix: If this was a 7-7-7-7 plan would you be satisfied? No, because you are still paying more and the rich still have more money than you, right? I have no problem paying more, but everyone should pay more. I shouldn't pay $6,000 more per year while Herman Cain saves millions. We can all agree on that. Or if you don't agree, are you arguing that everyone should pay the same percentage regardless? If so, please tell me.
last time I checked 9% of 25k is much less then 9% of 1,000,000..... Last time I checked it was never promised that America is the land of equality...America is the land of opportunity. I can understand why so many people are upset with this proposal. Paying income tax for the first time would suck, but maybe its time those who have enjoyed the benefits of this country for free start paying their part too...
|
This is what i love about my country, all the fuzz against chavez and what not, yet we only pay taxes (besides IVA (12% only), which is basically VAT on every purchase, which every country in the world pay), if you win more money than a certain threshold.
If you are employed, you pay taxes if you win more than 1.000 U.T. (Tribute units), which are 1= 72 BSF. so you need to win over Bsf. 72.000 monthly for them to charge you (around Bsf. 6.000 monthly), Engineers and Professionals earn that ammount, NOT everyone does.
If you go by yourself, you pay taxes when you earn more than 1.500 U.T. which is BsF. 108.000, or Bsf. 9.000 monthly, no free business??, yeah right...
And if you do Agriculture, Fishing, or other form of producing food, you only get taxed when you earn more than 2.625 U.T. or Bsf. 189.000 or bsf. 15.700 monthly, to stimulate food independency.
U.T. are revised annualy to compensate inflation. So you always need to earn more money to pay taxes if inflation was high.
Those salarys may seem low, but with PPP (Power Purchasing Parity) they are not, here with Bsf. 4.300, you can live well, the equivalent would be $1.000, in the US with $1.000 you live like crap.
$0.11 cents a gallon of gasoline makes everything cheap 
What the US should take is a similar approach when the poorest dont get taxed at all, and begin from there, also it WOULD HELP having an oil industry of its own, fuck Chevron, Exxon and every mother fucker, Oil should be state owned, PERIOD.
Also regulate Credit card, mortages, passive and actve interest rates and you will get better.
its funny how pretty much the whole fucking world is fucked up, yet ill be honest, we are pretty much untouched, for what supposedly are "bad policys", yet here we are better than ever. (and its not because high oil, even when oil was near $40/barrel, we were pretty much untouched)
Also US State owned Oil, would mean cheaper oil prices, have to love when oil prices go down, YET gas prices dont.
aniways if you want even a glimpse of hope of getting out of that hole, you gotta vote for Ron Paul, is the only one i have seen that has a clue of wtf he is talking about
|
On October 17 2011 06:00 crown77 wrote:
I'm sorry.. do you really have a business? because you can deduct 100% of the taxes on the items you buy that are for your business... so I don't get how you think you'll pay more taxes under cain's 999
No deductions under the 999 plan.
|
i think this is the wrong way to go about it. you need to a have a relatively increasing tax system, so that people under say 30.000 a year only pay 10%, while those over 200,000 pay over 50%
|
On October 17 2011 06:10 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 05:58 Kiarip wrote:On October 17 2011 05:48 Bibdy wrote:On October 17 2011 05:15 Kiarip wrote:
Lol...
Bibdy do you realize that when people keep their money in the banks, that money is used to lend to people, some whom use it to start new businesess, so even if the rich business owners don't try to expand their businesses, and simply invest trying to make more money, or put their money in the banks they are actually helping the economy grow.
The way that they actually DON'T help the economy grow is by going out and SPENDING all their money things like luxury cars, huge houses, and etc. Because they for the most part will only be buying products that already exist, so they are simply using that money on redistribution of wealth (moving car from store to their garage.)
But when they DON'T spend their money that money is lent out by banks...
Even if they keep it all in cash under their bed it helps a BIT because it limits the money supply of the system, thus enhancing the purchasing power of everyone who actually IS willing to spend money, because by not spending they are decreasing demand, which decreases the prices.
Stop with the Keynesianism please... It has been consistently wrong. What? You haven't got the faintest clue what Keynesianism actually is if you think it in any way relates to what I'm talking about. Might want to go learn yourself a book or two. If any economic system failed to live up to expectations, it was supply-side and trickle-down economics. It's systematically caused an ongoing trend of greater and greater wealth disparity because the top just isn't investing in the bottom. They're investing elsewhere in the world, because, thanks to globalization and improvements in technology, the other side of the world isn't so far away anymore. I get that money sitting in a bank is still useful, that's pretty basic, but apparently you're not smart enough to realize it's not sitting in OUR financial system that WE can make use of. It sits in offshore bank accounts that other countries make use of. Of course, but it's regulation that makes us uncompetitive with the rest of the world.
The top keep using the same old rhetoric of "If you tax us, we're just going to leave and then you'll have no jobs". But, the fact of the matter is, they depend on us to do the purchasing for them. So, it should be flipped the other way around, "If you take all of our money from us, we won't be there to buy your shit and allow you to live your affluent lifestyle".
It's not one or the other. If you really want progressive taxes that's fine, but you should still make them expenditure based. The thing is if you DO take from the rich more than they earn, yeah at some point the rich won't be rich anymore, but the poor won't be in better shape either. Our workforce needs to be made competitive in order for people to be able to get jobs. Sure, you can say that our standard of living is too high in order for our workforce to be competitive, but that's not the whole story, we also have a ton of regulations many of which are driven by special interests that make our workforce more expensive and less efficient. Well, that's the thing, we're ALL living beyond the means of what is sustainable right now, but the top is where the source of the problem lies. They control where the money goes after all, and if they keep letting it fly out the door, we're all going to find ourselves with nothing left.
If they're not spending the money, and our own businesses become profitable ventures, then the money will also stay here, and some money will come from overseas.
in the end the amount of wealth we're gonna have is going to be proportionate to how productive our economy is in general. So I think it would make sense to try to get the government out of the way in those areas where they are clearly limiting out productivity.
US workforces are competitive because they're a damned sight more productive than foreign labour, but less people care about the less tangible benefits of hiring a US worker to do, say, a software programming project without issue than the lower costs, but logistical and unproductive nightmare that is hiring 6 Indian software programmers to do the same job. They're cheaper, so fuck it, hire those guys, instead! Nevermind the fact that the time-zone difference becomes a burden on communication, the language barrier often gets in the way, nobody is local to directly micromanage problems and mistakes, and before you know it, you've just spent twice as much, and taken twice as long, on the project as you would have done hiring some properly trained and qualified people, who despite wanting health benefits, would have ended up costing you less, to do the job from the get-go. But, the 'promise' of getting the job done in the same time, with half the cost was too tempting. And we fall for that stupid behaviour again and again. Same reason consumers buy some cheap, crappy short lifespan Vaccuum Cleaner rather than a Dyson (frigging love those things). It's easier to sell something on low cost, than high quality.
Well all that means it that quality is overpriced right now, or at least considered to be overpriced.
If dyson was only like 5 % more expensive. than the cheap one then people would buy it, so this isn't necessarily the case of people always going with cheaper.
I think this is a case of people questioning how much the quality of our labor is really worth with resepect to the end result, and it turns out people think that the quality of labor is too expensive, so I think this is the right time to try to lower the cost of labor without decreasing the pay, and this is related to the liability that comes with hiring, and etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
