EPTPresident Obama Re-Elected - Page 195
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Hey guys! We'll be closing this thread shortly, but we will make an American politics megathread where we can continue the discussions in here. The new thread can be found here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301 | ||
|
natrus
United States102 Posts
| ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On July 20 2012 11:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote: The sales tax argument is irrelevant to whether nor not a capital gain is a double tax since any money received from the capital gain will still be subject to a sales tax if spent. "Double tax" is not something lobbyists imagined up! It actually is. The term "double taxation" is not used in the manner you describe in any country outside of America, nor was it ever used by economists before think tanks came up with this nontraditional usage. On July 20 2012 11:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Like I said at the start it's hard to see capital gains as double taxation but do we at least agree that dividends are double taxed? I agree that dividends are double taxed. Capital gains, however, represent growth in the company's value, something that is not necessarily taxed by corporate taxes (unlike dividends). For example, one way a corporation's value might increase is because they developed a new technology. This IP is a newly acquired asset of potentially immense value, but the company is never taxed on the increase to the company's value; only a CGT would tax this value increase. On July 20 2012 12:06 coverpunch wrote: I think the confusion is on company organization. If you're talking about a sole proprietorship, partnership, or S corp, then uh, yes, all the earnings do get distributed to owners because the income passes through to them. It doesn't matter what you do with the money, the IRS considers it your income. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't revenue invested into expansion considered simply another business expense rather than taxable income? | ||
|
MoreFaSho
United States1427 Posts
On July 20 2012 14:27 Lightwip wrote: Only a few actually do that. Good riddance. They can just pay tariffs instead of taxes. Also worth mentioning that if he gave up his citizenship to avoid taxes he broke the law. He won't admit to doing that so it's almost impossible to prove. | ||
|
Shady Sands
United States4021 Posts
On July 20 2012 14:27 Lightwip wrote: Only a few actually do that. Good riddance. They can just pay tariffs instead of taxes. Tariffs on what? The US is a net importer of goods, and most of our exports are heavy industrial equipment and agricultural products. The last I checked Saverin didn't need a new Boeing 787 or half a million tons of soybeans. The real issue with having a skewed tax rate like this is that it encourages certain types of capital to stay in the US while encouraging other types of capital to leave the US. Think about it--the largest investment sponge in the US is Treasury Bills to finance an enormous (and very capital-inefficient) government budget that is three-quarters entitlement spending and defense. Put more bluntly, the way the US tax structure is set up, is that it encourages the dumb money or the scared money to stay here, while pushing smart money or risky money out. This is not the way to encourage economic growth. Imagine if you set up your labor immigration policy to encourage only retirees and low-skilled parents with young children to come to America, while excluding PhDs and entrepreneurs. That's essentially what the US policies do for capital. EDIT: Put even more bluntly, from 1973 onwards, the US has created an economy that encourages rich people to spend money and live here (thanks to rule of law and a stable government), but encourages them to invest their money somewhere else. | ||
|
Lightwip
United States5497 Posts
The US tax rate for the wealthy is one of the lowest it's ever been, especially for capital gains. The expatriated wealthy will still have to pay for their investments in the US. And if they don't do that and leave over taxes, then good riddance. | ||
|
spilledmilk
Canada40 Posts
Well I hope Barry takes it down, Romney just comes off as a rich white dude who wants to get his rich white friends richer. But I am Canadian, so I don't really care too much I lived through GB and GB Jr. I could take 4 years of Romney. But Obama has been so good for our economy up here. Id like to see that stay the same. Please Vote for Barry my American friends. For the sake of Canadian prosperity =D PLZ. (hopefully the Dems can get the house back and keep the senate too. Poor Barry got stonewalled, and you guys really need to get your HC system fixed. Spending twice as much as my country per person even with Private insurance...~7K vs ~3.5K its sad to read stories like "I had a baby and had to sell my house".) | ||
|
SayGen
United States1209 Posts
Less government, less regulation. Let the market solve its own problems. Doctors can't set prices for care, cause they have to go through the goverment for everything. doctors can't be competetive, so prices will never drop. You could flood the market with a supply of Doctors and prices would not fall. Goverment is the problem not the solution. | ||
|
Lightwip
United States5497 Posts
| ||
|
SayGen
United States1209 Posts
On July 21 2012 00:49 Lightwip wrote: The market sure solved itself into the current economic downturn. Do some research about the business cycle and how it works. Things get built, destroyed, and rebuilt stronger. The market works- but don't ever expect cloud free days everyday. It has to rain for grass to grow. Nice try though | ||
|
SayGen
United States1209 Posts
On July 21 2012 00:15 spilledmilk wrote: Man Ron Paul is going to be dead before the US gets to vote for him. I believe he said he won't run again, though he has a son who is leading my state, Kentucky. He isn't a real libertarian though he is more of a conservative,GOPer. | ||
|
Epocalypse
Canada319 Posts
The context is Obama’s full presidency. He is a socialist. The content of his speech is filled with “you didn’t do it on your own” for the reason that if you accept this notion, then you owe everyone else something, you have an unquantifiable debt to society. It’s a call to loot those who have produced by their own effort. Bridges, roads, teachers, sunlight. That’s all given, the same stuff that everyone has access to and not something you choose. But one person can choose not to apply his mind and become a bum while another person can apply his mind and be successful. Each of those people, earned what they got, and it is thanks to their own effort. It’s also ludicrous to think that given the choice, people wouldn’t freely build all those things, as if we need government to run our schools, to build our roads. This notion is false and flies in the face of history. But Obama knows that, he just wants you to forget it, he wants to reinforce that we need a parent state. Clearly Obama is consistent with the sentiment that “you didn’t get there on your own” because of the rhetoric he uses, instead of mentioning what it takes to be successful, he tells you, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t do it on your own. Here’s a bit about what businessmen risk: Having a dream and working to actualize it, working long hard hours not knowing what will come of them, taking all the risks in funding, in family, in friendship, dedicating time to a potential flop. Saying something like this would be acknowledging the heroism of businessmen, BO does none of that. But also remember, businesses and businessmen already pay taxes, and the more successful, the more they pay. Yet BO does not make mention of that, rather he says "We then ask that the wealthy pay a little more". Even more than they already pay? And by “ask” he means “force”. More context: the crowd. “You didn’t get there on your own,” crowd yells in agreement “That’s right” “it must be because I was just so smart.” The crowd mocked that with laughter. They are basically mocking success; Obama knows it, as it was his intended goal. He is speaking to the envy of success in those people, and it’s loudly responding. Now these people will be happier to loot the rich and successful. Then, after focusing on bashing success and businessmen at length he throws in this “The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.” To mask the vileness of what he had said before. Obama doesn’t hate business owners, he needs them to loot. He just wants you to hate them so that when he does loot them, you won’t create a fuss. Quote from Atlas Shrugged - touches on what BO is trying to cash in on. “He didn’t invent iron ore and blast furnaces, did he?” “Who?” “Rearden. He didn’t invent smelting and chemistry and air compression. He couldn’t have invented his Metal but for thousands and thousands of other people. His Metal! Why does he think it’s his? Why does he think it’s his invention? Everybody uses the work of everybody else. Nobody ever invents anything.” She said, puzzled, “But the iron ore and all those other things were there all the time. Why didn’t anybody else make that Metal, but Mr. Rearden did?” - Atlas Shrugged, P1C9 | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21344 Posts
On July 21 2012 00:56 SayGen wrote: Do some research about the business cycle and how it works. Things get built, destroyed, and rebuilt stronger. The market works- but don't ever expect cloud free days everyday. It has to rain for grass to grow. Nice try though Is that why recessions are happening faster and faster and more severe? Sure is getting stronger. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15394 Posts
On July 21 2012 01:06 Epocalypse wrote: Link to BO's text The context is Obama’s full presidency. He is a socialist. The content of his speech is filled with “you didn’t do it on your own” for the reason that if you accept this notion, then you owe everyone else something, you have an unquantifiable debt to society. It’s a call to loot those who have produced by their own effort. Bridges, roads, teachers, sunlight. That’s all given, the same stuff that everyone has access to and not something you choose. But one person can choose not to apply his mind and become a bum while another person can apply his mind and be successful. Each of those people, earned what they got, and it is thanks to their own effort. It’s also ludicrous to think that given the choice, people wouldn’t freely build all those things, as if we need government to run our schools, to build our roads. This notion is false and flies in the face of history. But Obama knows that, he just wants you to forget it, he wants to reinforce that we need a parent state. Clearly Obama is consistent with the sentiment that “you didn’t get there on your own” because of the rhetoric he uses, instead of mentioning what it takes to be successful, he tells you, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t do it on your own. Here’s a bit about what businessmen risk: Having a dream and working to actualize it, working long hard hours not knowing what will come of them, taking all the risks in funding, in family, in friendship, dedicating time to a potential flop. Saying something like this would be acknowledging the heroism of businessmen, BO does none of that. But also remember, businesses and businessmen already pay taxes, and the more successful, the more they pay. Yet BO does not make mention of that, rather he says "We then ask that the wealthy pay a little more". Even more than they already pay? And by “ask” he means “force”. More context: the crowd. “You didn’t get there on your own,” crowd yells in agreement “That’s right” “it must be because I was just so smart.” The crowd mocked that with laughter. They are basically mocking success; Obama knows it, as it was his intended goal. He is speaking to the envy of success in those people, and it’s loudly responding. Now these people will be happier to loot the rich and successful. Then, after focusing on bashing success and businessmen at length he throws in this “The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.” To mask the vileness of what he had said before. Obama doesn’t hate business owners, he needs them to loot. He just wants you to hate them so that when he does loot them, you won’t create a fuss. Quote from Atlas Shrugged - touches on what BO is trying to cash in on. I think the point he was actually making was that while people build their own success, the things that people take for granted, like not having to hire a small band of guards to defend your shop from looters, is something that doesn't just magically exist. Police, army, etc are certainly something that don't come free and its not something that any business could survive without. A society and government are not a god-given right and its important that people remember just how much those things make possible. It just seems like businesses try to pretend that their brilliance and their brilliance alone were all that made their success possible. But that's not even close to being the case, as governments are the only reason its possible to begin with. | ||
|
Lightwip
United States5497 Posts
On July 21 2012 00:56 SayGen wrote: Do some research about the business cycle and how it works. Things get built, destroyed, and rebuilt stronger. The market works- but don't ever expect cloud free days everyday. It has to rain for grass to grow. Nice try though We sure fixed our way out of the Great Depression without government help. | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On July 21 2012 01:06 Epocalypse wrote: Link to BO's text The context is Obama’s full presidency. He is a socialist. The content of his speech is filled with “you didn’t do it on your own” for the reason that if you accept this notion, then you owe everyone else something, you have an unquantifiable debt to society. It’s a call to loot those who have produced by their own effort. Bridges, roads, teachers, sunlight. That’s all given, the same stuff that everyone has access to and not something you choose. But one person can choose not to apply his mind and become a bum while another person can apply his mind and be successful. Each of those people, earned what they got, and it is thanks to their own effort. It’s also ludicrous to think that given the choice, people wouldn’t freely build all those things, as if we need government to run our schools, to build our roads. This notion is false and flies in the face of history. But Obama knows that, he just wants you to forget it, he wants to reinforce that we need a parent state. Clearly Obama is consistent with the sentiment that “you didn’t get there on your own” because of the rhetoric he uses, instead of mentioning what it takes to be successful, he tells you, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t do it on your own. Here’s a bit about what businessmen risk: Having a dream and working to actualize it, working long hard hours not knowing what will come of them, taking all the risks in funding, in family, in friendship, dedicating time to a potential flop. Saying something like this would be acknowledging the heroism of businessmen, BO does none of that. But also remember, businesses and businessmen already pay taxes, and the more successful, the more they pay. Yet BO does not make mention of that, rather he says "We then ask that the wealthy pay a little more". Even more than they already pay? And by “ask” he means “force”. More context: the crowd. “You didn’t get there on your own,” crowd yells in agreement “That’s right” “it must be because I was just so smart.” The crowd mocked that with laughter. They are basically mocking success; Obama knows it, as it was his intended goal. He is speaking to the envy of success in those people, and it’s loudly responding. Now these people will be happier to loot the rich and successful. Then, after focusing on bashing success and businessmen at length he throws in this “The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.” To mask the vileness of what he had said before. Obama doesn’t hate business owners, he needs them to loot. He just wants you to hate them so that when he does loot them, you won’t create a fuss. Quote from Atlas Shrugged - touches on what BO is trying to cash in on. I'm guess you're maybe in your early 20's or in college. Maybe you're aspiring to run your own business one day. Wait another ten years. You see a lot of your friends rise and fall. Some will start their own business, bust their ass and not make it. Some will get a lucky break and run into the right person at the right time. Some will be lazy but it won't matter, because their primary lenders are their parents and they're get by on borrowing money. Or most of their clients are friends or family friends they've had already for a very long time. It takes a lot of hard work to be a successful entrepreneur, but any honest entrepreneur would admit it takes a little bit of luck. Think about how lucky you are, just to be born or living in Canada, and how much more hardship you'd have to endure in a second or third world country. | ||
|
SayGen
United States1209 Posts
You didn't do the research on the Business cycle yet did you. As a people (could be anyone not just Americans) grow more prosperious they become more luxerious. Business shift to luxery/entertainment (like SC2! yay). When times get tough Americans have to stick to the basics. Food/Shelter/Taxes. This results in a big fall. When a large section of the economy collapses it can have a LARGE ripple effect. This effect is tempory. An economy can never compltly shut down unless every single member of the group is self reliant. Farmers will always sell crops. Bankers will always bank. Builders will always build. Once the foundation of the economy is refound it is built up again and the cycle repeats. Some falls hurt more and when the goverment gets involved to delay the fall it just makes the fall worse. (see housing crisis). | ||
Falling
Canada11266 Posts
On July 21 2012 01:34 SayGen wrote: The Great depression would of ended without the goverments help as well. You didn't do the research on the Business cycle yet did you. As a people (could be anyone not just Americans) grow more prosperious they become more luxerious. Business shift to luxery/entertainment (like SC2! yay). When times get tough Americans have to stick to the basics. Food/Shelter/Taxes. This results in a big fall. When a large section of the economy collapses it can have a LARGE ripple effect. This effect is tempory. An economy can never compltly shut down unless every single member of the group is self reliant. Farmers will always sell crops. Bankers will always bank. Builders will always build. Once the foundation of the economy is refound it is built up again and the cycle repeats. Some falls hurt more and when the goverment gets involved to delay the fall it just makes the fall worse. (see housing crisis). No probably no-one did because it's been argued in circles multiple times in this thread and it's previous incarnation. Everytime a new Austrian Economists jumps on here they just want to argue the same thing that was argued before a hundred times  | ||
|
Lightwip
United States5497 Posts
On July 21 2012 01:34 SayGen wrote: The Great depression would of ended without the goverments help as well. You didn't do the research on the Business cycle yet did you. As a people (could be anyone not just Americans) grow more prosperious they become more luxerious. Business shift to luxery/entertainment (like SC2! yay). When times get tough Americans have to stick to the basics. Food/Shelter/Taxes. This results in a big fall. When a large section of the economy collapses it can have a LARGE ripple effect. This effect is tempory. An economy can never compltly shut down unless every single member of the group is self reliant. Farmers will always sell crops. Bankers will always bank. Builders will always build. Once the foundation of the economy is refound it is built up again and the cycle repeats. Some falls hurt more and when the goverment gets involved to delay the fall it just makes the fall worse. (see housing crisis). I'm well aware of the business cycle. But I think you need to do some research on proper grammar. Not to mention you have no idea what you're talking about. The Great Depression wouldn't have solved itself any time soon without massive government expenditures. Farmers will always sell crops. Bankers will always bank. Builders will always build. This is entirely false. They stop as soon as there is no incentive to do so. | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
On July 20 2012 19:01 sunprince wrote: It actually is. The term "double taxation" is not used in the manner you describe in any country outside of America, nor was it ever used by economists before think tanks came up with this nontraditional usage. I agree that dividends are double taxed. Capital gains, however, represent growth in the company's value, something that is not necessarily taxed by corporate taxes (unlike dividends). For example, one way a corporation's value might increase is because they developed a new technology. This IP is a newly acquired asset of potentially immense value, but the company is never taxed on the increase to the company's value; only a CGT would tax this value increase. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't revenue invested into expansion considered simply another business expense rather than taxable income? Ok, I'll correct you. Investments into expansion are capitalized, not expensed, and therefore not deducted from income, therefore such investments are done with 'after-tax' income and the amount available for businesses to invest is reduced by higher taxes. For the confusion about capital gains not being double taxed, earnings of a business (corporation, specifically) can either be distributed in the form of dividends or not. When dividends are distributed, they reduce the capital (equity) of the business and the share price drops accordingly. When dividends are not paid out, there is obviously no such decrease in the price of the stock. So, one can conclude that the stock price, whatever it is, has been increased by undistributed earnings. When the stock is sold, it is higher than it would have been had all earnings been paid out as dividends, by the amount of earnings that have not been paid out as dividends. So, instead of being taxed as dividends, that difference is a capital gain. If dividends are double taxed, then it's not really valid to argue that capital gains are not. One (or "the") reason that capital gains are given preferential tax treatment is because our system wants to encourage reinvestment instead of distribution of those earnings. I hope that helps. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On July 21 2012 01:07 Gorsameth wrote: Is that why recessions are happening faster and faster and more severe? Sure is getting stronger. THIS recession is more severe. But post WW2 the trend was for recessions to be less frequent and less severe. | ||
| ||
