• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 02:00
CEST 08:00
KST 15:00
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Serral wins EWC 202514Tournament Spotlight: FEL Cracow 20259Power Rank - Esports World Cup 202580RSL Season 1 - Final Week9[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall15
Community News
[BSL 2025] H2 - Team Wars, Weeklies & SB Ladder2EWC 2025 - Replay Pack2Google Play ASL (Season 20) Announced27BSL Team Wars - Bonyth, Dewalt, Hawk & Sziky teams10Weekly Cups (July 14-20): Final Check-up0
StarCraft 2
General
Serral wins EWC 2025 #1: Maru - Greatest Players of All Time Greatest Players of All Time: 2025 Update Power Rank - Esports World Cup 2025 EWC 2025 - Replay Pack
Tourneys
FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $10,000 live event TaeJa vs Creator Bo7 SC Evo Showmatch Esports World Cup 2025 $25,000 Streamerzone StarCraft Pro Series announced $5,000 WardiTV Summer Championship 2025
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation # 484 Magnetic Pull Mutation #239 Bad Weather Mutation # 483 Kill Bot Wars Mutation # 482 Wheel of Misfortune
Brood War
General
Google Play ASL (Season 20) Announced Shield Battery Server New Patch BW General Discussion [BSL 2025] H2 - Team Wars, Weeklies & SB Ladder BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues [BSL20] Non-Korean Championship 4x BSL + 4x China CSL Xiamen International Invitational [CSLPRO] It's CSLAN Season! - Last Chance
Strategy
Does 1 second matter in StarCraft? Simple Questions, Simple Answers Muta micro map competition [G] Mineral Boosting
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread Total Annihilation Server - TAForever [MMORPG] Tree of Savior (Successor of Ragnarok) Path of Exile
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
UK Politics Mega-thread US Politics Mega-thread Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine
Fan Clubs
INnoVation Fan Club SKT1 Classic Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
Anime Discussion Thread [\m/] Heavy Metal Thread Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Korean Music Discussion
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NBA General Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Gtx660 graphics card replacement Installation of Windows 10 suck at "just a moment" Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
TeamLiquid Team Shirt On Sale The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Ping To Win? Pings And Their…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Socialism Anyone?
GreenHorizons
Eight Anniversary as a TL…
Mizenhauer
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 665 users

President Obama Re-Elected - Page 485

Forum Index > General Forum
Post a Reply
Prev 1 483 484 485 486 487 1504 Next
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
Doublemint
Profile Joined July 2011
Austria8513 Posts
September 10 2012 23:31 GMT
#9681
On September 11 2012 08:21 Savio wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 11 2012 08:02 ticklishmusic wrote:
On September 11 2012 07:41 tofucake wrote:
I apologize to the world for NonCorporeal.


I guess he's now...

noncorporeal.

YEAAAAAAAAAAH.

In other news, my favorite election tracker has Obama's chances of re-election at over 80%. Generally I'd dismiss it as a convention bounce that isn't very important, but given the lack of bounce for Romney, well, I think its much more significant.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/


Wow, September polls must be SO ACCURATE huh?


I would say that the DNC on the whole was a bit better(even though I watched Condie's speech and damn, good stuff) and therefore the bump should be in the Dems favor - but the next checkpoint where the candidates can and have to score massively are the debates.

Really looking forward to watching them


ziggurat
Profile Joined October 2010
Canada847 Posts
September 10 2012 23:35 GMT
#9682
On September 11 2012 07:09 Roe wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 11 2012 06:41 xDaunt wrote:
On September 11 2012 06:02 ImAbstracT wrote:

Let's look at the extreme case, where taxes are say, 90%. I'm not recommending that, but just using that as an example. In that case, a business has a huge incentive to continue to invest in the business (which creates deductible expenses) instead of taking money out of the business.

High tax rates favor business investment. Lower tax rates encourage owners to not invest, not hire, and to take money out of the business as fast as they can.

I sure wish just once somebody would explain this basic business principle in the MSM.


Whoever wrote this is just dumb.


Calling someone dumb is a good argument... What he wrote is factually correct. When taxes are low, business hire less (in fact they lay off more), when taxes are high they invest in their company more and the economy of the country is much healthier because you have people actually spending their money instead of hoarding it off shore. Are you simply aware that businesses aren't competent and won't be able to invest their money appropriately, so you argue for these types of regressive policies? I really do want to know from where you get this distorted view of reality.

No. If taxes are high people are incentivized to think "I could work really hard and start a great business ... but I'd lose most of the profits in taxes anyway so why bother?" Or, they think "I'm going to invest my money, should I invest it here where the govt will take a ton of my profits? Or should I invest it offshore where I'll get to keep most of the profits myself?"

Starting a business is a big risk. Many businesses fail. So when a smart person is trying to decide if they will start one or not they look at the possible outcomes, and reasistically assess the risk/reward ratio. For example, say I am considering $1,000,000 in a business and I see the following possible outcomes:

Scenario 1 - 10% chance that this will happen - Huge success - I make $500,000 a year from this business

Scenario 2 - 50% chance that this will happen - moderate success - I make $200,000 a year from this business

Scenario 3 - 40% chance - business fails, I lose my investment

You can make up whatever numbers you want, but if the tax rate is really high a lot of people will simply look at the numbers and decide its not worth it. If tax rates are low people are encouraged to start businesses because the rewards are that much greater if they are successful.
Pufftrees
Profile Joined March 2009
2449 Posts
September 10 2012 23:36 GMT
#9683
http://www.ijreview.com/2012/09/15290-case-closed-if-moderate-voters-see-this-video-its-over-for-obama/

There is a great video for people which outlines the lies and broken promises by Obama. I 100 percent think Obama is going to be Re-elected (I would bet nearly everything I own on the issue), but that doesn't mean you can't watch a video and laugh at how ignorant the USA voters really are.

Chance favors the prepared mind.
aztrorisk
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
United States896 Posts
September 10 2012 23:40 GMT
#9684
On September 11 2012 08:28 Defacer wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 11 2012 08:21 Savio wrote:
On September 11 2012 08:02 ticklishmusic wrote:
On September 11 2012 07:41 tofucake wrote:
I apologize to the world for NonCorporeal.


I guess he's now...

noncorporeal.

YEAAAAAAAAAAH.

In other news, my favorite election tracker has Obama's chances of re-election at over 80%. Generally I'd dismiss it as a convention bounce that isn't very important, but given the lack of bounce for Romney, well, I think its much more significant.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/


Wow, September polls must be SO ACCURATE huh?


Not just this poll. Four separate polls point to a trend of Obama gaining favor. I'll try to find links later.

It doesn't mean that Obama will ultimately win, but considering that Romney has spent the past 5 years and hundreds of millions of dollars trying to be president he should be polling better by now.


talking about polls for prediction, Romney was predicted to win by the CU analysis which has correctly predicted with winner since 1980. http://digitaljournal.com/article/331390

I'm not saying that you believe that Romney will win. I'm just saying that he was a very good chance to win this election and it is going to be very close.
A lock that opens to many keys is a bad lock. A key that opens many locks is a master key.
s3rp
Profile Joined May 2011
Germany3192 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-09-10 23:43:34
September 10 2012 23:41 GMT
#9685
On September 11 2012 08:36 Pufftrees wrote:
http://www.ijreview.com/2012/09/15290-case-closed-if-moderate-voters-see-this-video-its-over-for-obama/

There is a great video for people which outlines the lies and broken promises by Obama. I 100 percent think Obama is going to be Re-elected (I would bet nearly everything I own on the issue), but that doesn't mean you can't watch a video and laugh at how ignorant the USA voters really are.



Even if Obama does alot of things wrong voting for the current GOP would just be madness , especially a superrich corperate robot like Romney . Unless of course you're a billionaire or a corperate excecutive or someone like that.
He's the lesser of the two evils .
ticklishmusic
Profile Blog Joined August 2011
United States15977 Posts
September 10 2012 23:47 GMT
#9686
There were some significant differences between Carter's loss and this election though. Carter refused to participate in a debate, sustained some damage from Ted Kennedy during the primary, and Reagan was arguably a much stronger candidate than Romney.

Obama is far from perfect and has not met the expectations that were thrust upon him in 2008 (who could have?), but I think he's a lot more honest and pragmatic than the republican alternative. IMO its far from "choosing the lesser of two evils" as the republicans essentially are trying to frame the election as. I don't even have to say better the evil we know than the evil we don't, because that's not what the election is to me.
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
Defacer
Profile Blog Joined October 2010
Canada5052 Posts
September 10 2012 23:50 GMT
#9687
People that 'vote Romney' this year will not be voting for Romney at all, they'll be voting for a white male duplicitous proxy; a NOT-OBAMA-BOT.

Romney actually represents and stands for very little. If he wins with the campaign he has -- a well-funded mishmash of misinformation, vague promises, cynicism and voter suppression -- it will be the most depressing victory in American politics ... well, ever.

I don't know enough about American history. Has there ever been another president that won just by showing up?


Derez
Profile Blog Joined January 2011
Netherlands6068 Posts
September 10 2012 23:57 GMT
#9688
On September 11 2012 08:47 ticklishmusic wrote:
There were some significant differences between Carter's loss and this election though. Carter refused to participate in a debate, sustained some damage from Ted Kennedy during the primary, and Reagan was arguably a much stronger candidate than Romney.

Obama is far from perfect and has not met the expectations that were thrust upon him in 2008 (who could have?), but I think he's a lot more honest and pragmatic than the republican alternative. IMO its far from "choosing the lesser of two evils" as the republicans essentially are trying to frame the election as. I don't even have to say better the evil we know than the evil we don't, because that's not what the election is to me.

Let's not forget about the hostage crisis.
HellRoxYa
Profile Joined September 2010
Sweden1614 Posts
September 10 2012 23:58 GMT
#9689
On September 11 2012 08:35 ziggurat wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 11 2012 07:09 Roe wrote:
On September 11 2012 06:41 xDaunt wrote:
On September 11 2012 06:02 ImAbstracT wrote:

Let's look at the extreme case, where taxes are say, 90%. I'm not recommending that, but just using that as an example. In that case, a business has a huge incentive to continue to invest in the business (which creates deductible expenses) instead of taking money out of the business.

High tax rates favor business investment. Lower tax rates encourage owners to not invest, not hire, and to take money out of the business as fast as they can.

I sure wish just once somebody would explain this basic business principle in the MSM.


Whoever wrote this is just dumb.


Calling someone dumb is a good argument... What he wrote is factually correct. When taxes are low, business hire less (in fact they lay off more), when taxes are high they invest in their company more and the economy of the country is much healthier because you have people actually spending their money instead of hoarding it off shore. Are you simply aware that businesses aren't competent and won't be able to invest their money appropriately, so you argue for these types of regressive policies? I really do want to know from where you get this distorted view of reality.

No. If taxes are high people are incentivized to think "I could work really hard and start a great business ... but I'd lose most of the profits in taxes anyway so why bother?" Or, they think "I'm going to invest my money, should I invest it here where the govt will take a ton of my profits? Or should I invest it offshore where I'll get to keep most of the profits myself?"

Starting a business is a big risk. Many businesses fail. So when a smart person is trying to decide if they will start one or not they look at the possible outcomes, and reasistically assess the risk/reward ratio. For example, say I am considering $1,000,000 in a business and I see the following possible outcomes:

Scenario 1 - 10% chance that this will happen - Huge success - I make $500,000 a year from this business

Scenario 2 - 50% chance that this will happen - moderate success - I make $200,000 a year from this business

Scenario 3 - 40% chance - business fails, I lose my investment

You can make up whatever numbers you want, but if the tax rate is really high a lot of people will simply look at the numbers and decide its not worth it. If tax rates are low people are encouraged to start businesses because the rewards are that much greater if they are successful.


Yet you're forgetting an important part of the equation. Are you fucked if your company does not succeed or not? The higher the taxrate the less likely you are to be fucked if your business fails. I actually find your argument highly lacking due to this.

Also, people are, in general, risk averse, which means that a safer society (one where you don't fail at life if your company fails in this scenario) would make people more willing to start a new company, not less.
farvacola
Profile Blog Joined January 2011
United States18826 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-09-11 00:09:08
September 11 2012 00:03 GMT
#9690
On September 11 2012 08:50 Defacer wrote:
People that 'vote Romney' this year will not be voting for Romney at all, they'll be voting for a white male duplicitous proxy; a NOT-OBAMA-BOT.

Romney actually represents and stands for very little. If he wins with the campaign he has -- a well-funded mishmash of misinformation, vague promises, cynicism and voter suppression -- it will be the most depressing victory in American politics ... well, ever.

I don't know enough about American history. Has there ever been another president that won just by showing up?



In recent memory, George H. W. Bush's win over Michael Dukakis seems most similar to the scenario you're describing. H.W. barely had to do anything, while Dukakis repeatedly made gaff after gaff. Reagan beat Carter by a wider margin though, and while I'm not thoroughly familiar with the election of 1980, I'm fairly certain practically any Republican could have beaten Carter that cycle.
"when the Dead Kennedys found out they had skinhead fans, they literally wrote a song titled 'Nazi Punks Fuck Off'"
ticklishmusic
Profile Blog Joined August 2011
United States15977 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-09-11 00:11:37
September 11 2012 00:08 GMT
#9691
On September 11 2012 08:57 Derez wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 11 2012 08:47 ticklishmusic wrote:
There were some significant differences between Carter's loss and this election though. Carter refused to participate in a debate, sustained some damage from Ted Kennedy during the primary, and Reagan was arguably a much stronger candidate than Romney.

Obama is far from perfect and has not met the expectations that were thrust upon him in 2008 (who could have?), but I think he's a lot more honest and pragmatic than the republican alternative. IMO its far from "choosing the lesser of two evils" as the republicans essentially are trying to frame the election as. I don't even have to say better the evil we know than the evil we don't, because that's not what the election is to me.

Let's not forget about the hostage crisis.


*facepalm*

Oh yeah, that little matter. I can't believe I missed that. Gracias.

But yeah, point is its very different situations. Carter showed poor leadership and a bad attitude on a series of things that happened, Obama is showing humility.
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
xDaunt
Profile Joined March 2010
United States17988 Posts
September 11 2012 00:24 GMT
#9692
The polls out there aren't really worth the paper that they're written on. They are oversampling democrats, which skews the results. Just go look at the latest CNN poll. In fact, the pre-election day polling has been pretty bad in terms of skewing democratic since the 2010 elections.
ticklishmusic
Profile Blog Joined August 2011
United States15977 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-09-11 00:31:36
September 11 2012 00:30 GMT
#9693
On September 11 2012 09:24 xDaunt wrote:
The polls out there aren't really worth the paper that they're written on. They are oversampling democrats, which skews the results. Just go look at the latest CNN poll. In fact, the pre-election day polling has been pretty bad in terms of skewing democratic since the 2010 elections.


Can you cite a source that explains this bias for at least a significant amount of the polls that are used by 538? I don't buy into the vast lamestream media conspiracy thing.

If anything, I don't understand why people would want to have inaccurate polls. Being wrong ruins their credibility. Also, it acts as a double edged sword. For the trailer, supporters might think "we need to help our guy cuz he's losing", while the frontunner's supporters might think "we want to hop on the victory parade" or worse, "its okay, we're gonna win I don't need to vote."
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
Defacer
Profile Blog Joined October 2010
Canada5052 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-09-11 02:42:14
September 11 2012 00:49 GMT
#9694
On September 11 2012 09:24 xDaunt wrote:
The polls out there aren't really worth the paper that they're written on. They are oversampling democrats, which skews the results. Just go look at the latest CNN poll. In fact, the pre-election day polling has been pretty bad in terms of skewing democratic since the 2010 elections.


Normally I would agree with you, but Even the Rasmussen Report Polls, which is notorious for leaning right and had Obama behind Romney for most of the year, indicates that Obama has a 5% lead after the election.

This doesn't mean Obama is going to win, but it does raise the question of whether or not there is something with the Republican's strategy.

A strong performance by Romney during the debates would make a big difference, but both Ryan's and Romney's recent statements to some of the criticism levelled at them during the DNC having them doing backflips.

I get the sense that Clinton speech suddenly reminded journalists and broadcasters what their jobs actually are, and they're finally starting to ask -- gasp -- follow up questions in interviews. Whenever Romney gives some kind of nebulous response to his position on healthcare and tries to move to the middle without alienating the right, it only reinforces Obama's assertion that they don't actually have a real position or plan at all.

What's really depressing is watching Ryan getting flummoxed by the platform and it's agenda. I know the Ryan nomination is one of the reasons you feel more comfortable voting for Romney, but it seems like Ryan is being Romnified, and not the other way around.

JonnyBNoHo
Profile Joined July 2011
United States6277 Posts
September 11 2012 01:20 GMT
#9695
On September 11 2012 08:58 HellRoxYa wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 11 2012 08:35 ziggurat wrote:
On September 11 2012 07:09 Roe wrote:
On September 11 2012 06:41 xDaunt wrote:
On September 11 2012 06:02 ImAbstracT wrote:

Let's look at the extreme case, where taxes are say, 90%. I'm not recommending that, but just using that as an example. In that case, a business has a huge incentive to continue to invest in the business (which creates deductible expenses) instead of taking money out of the business.

High tax rates favor business investment. Lower tax rates encourage owners to not invest, not hire, and to take money out of the business as fast as they can.

I sure wish just once somebody would explain this basic business principle in the MSM.


Whoever wrote this is just dumb.


Calling someone dumb is a good argument... What he wrote is factually correct. When taxes are low, business hire less (in fact they lay off more), when taxes are high they invest in their company more and the economy of the country is much healthier because you have people actually spending their money instead of hoarding it off shore. Are you simply aware that businesses aren't competent and won't be able to invest their money appropriately, so you argue for these types of regressive policies? I really do want to know from where you get this distorted view of reality.

No. If taxes are high people are incentivized to think "I could work really hard and start a great business ... but I'd lose most of the profits in taxes anyway so why bother?" Or, they think "I'm going to invest my money, should I invest it here where the govt will take a ton of my profits? Or should I invest it offshore where I'll get to keep most of the profits myself?"

Starting a business is a big risk. Many businesses fail. So when a smart person is trying to decide if they will start one or not they look at the possible outcomes, and reasistically assess the risk/reward ratio. For example, say I am considering $1,000,000 in a business and I see the following possible outcomes:

Scenario 1 - 10% chance that this will happen - Huge success - I make $500,000 a year from this business

Scenario 2 - 50% chance that this will happen - moderate success - I make $200,000 a year from this business

Scenario 3 - 40% chance - business fails, I lose my investment

You can make up whatever numbers you want, but if the tax rate is really high a lot of people will simply look at the numbers and decide its not worth it. If tax rates are low people are encouraged to start businesses because the rewards are that much greater if they are successful.


Yet you're forgetting an important part of the equation. Are you fucked if your company does not succeed or not? The higher the taxrate the less likely you are to be fucked if your business fails. I actually find your argument highly lacking due to this.

Also, people are, in general, risk averse, which means that a safer society (one where you don't fail at life if your company fails in this scenario) would make people more willing to start a new company, not less.


A stronger social safety net would make investors more willing to make riskier investments but less likely to save and invest in general (less need to save). That is not a good combination.

Social safety nets offer a lot of value, but increasing investment is not one of them.
xDaunt
Profile Joined March 2010
United States17988 Posts
September 11 2012 01:54 GMT
#9696
On September 11 2012 09:49 Defacer wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 11 2012 09:24 xDaunt wrote:
The polls out there aren't really worth the paper that they're written on. They are oversampling democrats, which skews the results. Just go look at the latest CNN poll. In fact, the pre-election day polling has been pretty bad in terms of skewing democratic since the 2010 elections.


Normally I would agree with you, but Even the Rasmussen Report Polls, which is notorious for leaning right and had Obama behind Romney for most of the year, indicates that Obama has a 5% lead after the election.

This doesn't mean Obama is going to win, but it does raise the question of whether or not their is something with the Republican's strategy.

A strong performance by Romney during the debates would make a big difference, but both Ryan's and Romney's recent statements to some of the criticism levelled at them during the DNC having them doing backflips.

I get the sense that Clinton speech suddenly reminded journalists and broadcasters what their jobs actually are, and they're finally starting to ask -- gasp -- follow up questions in interviews. Whenever Romney gives some kind of nebulous response to his position on healthcare and tries to move to the middle without alienating the right, it only reinforces Obama's assertion that they don't actually have a real position or plan at all.

What's really depressing is watching Ryan getting flummoxed by the platform and it's agenda. I know the Ryan nomination is one of the reasons you feel more comfortable voting for Romney, but it seems like Ryan is being Romnified, and not the other way around.



Well, it's hard to tell what the polls are doing unless you look at the internals. Again, from what I have seen, the sampling base in these polls is lopsided by 5 points towards democrats. My understanding is that this bias is intentional because the pollsters are modeling the 2008 election environment. Of course, this is problematic for obvious reasons. As was demonstrated by what happened in 2010 and even by some of the individual elections like the Scott Walker recall.

With regards to your final point about Ryan being "Romnified," I unfortunately have to agree. Hopefully this changes soon.
ziggurat
Profile Joined October 2010
Canada847 Posts
September 11 2012 04:00 GMT
#9697
On September 11 2012 08:58 HellRoxYa wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 11 2012 08:35 ziggurat wrote:
On September 11 2012 07:09 Roe wrote:
On September 11 2012 06:41 xDaunt wrote:
On September 11 2012 06:02 ImAbstracT wrote:

Let's look at the extreme case, where taxes are say, 90%. I'm not recommending that, but just using that as an example. In that case, a business has a huge incentive to continue to invest in the business (which creates deductible expenses) instead of taking money out of the business.

High tax rates favor business investment. Lower tax rates encourage owners to not invest, not hire, and to take money out of the business as fast as they can.

I sure wish just once somebody would explain this basic business principle in the MSM.


Whoever wrote this is just dumb.


Calling someone dumb is a good argument... What he wrote is factually correct. When taxes are low, business hire less (in fact they lay off more), when taxes are high they invest in their company more and the economy of the country is much healthier because you have people actually spending their money instead of hoarding it off shore. Are you simply aware that businesses aren't competent and won't be able to invest their money appropriately, so you argue for these types of regressive policies? I really do want to know from where you get this distorted view of reality.

No. If taxes are high people are incentivized to think "I could work really hard and start a great business ... but I'd lose most of the profits in taxes anyway so why bother?" Or, they think "I'm going to invest my money, should I invest it here where the govt will take a ton of my profits? Or should I invest it offshore where I'll get to keep most of the profits myself?"

Starting a business is a big risk. Many businesses fail. So when a smart person is trying to decide if they will start one or not they look at the possible outcomes, and reasistically assess the risk/reward ratio. For example, say I am considering $1,000,000 in a business and I see the following possible outcomes:

Scenario 1 - 10% chance that this will happen - Huge success - I make $500,000 a year from this business

Scenario 2 - 50% chance that this will happen - moderate success - I make $200,000 a year from this business

Scenario 3 - 40% chance - business fails, I lose my investment

You can make up whatever numbers you want, but if the tax rate is really high a lot of people will simply look at the numbers and decide its not worth it. If tax rates are low people are encouraged to start businesses because the rewards are that much greater if they are successful.


Yet you're forgetting an important part of the equation. Are you fucked if your company does not succeed or not? The higher the taxrate the less likely you are to be fucked if your business fails. I actually find your argument highly lacking due to this.

Also, people are, in general, risk averse, which means that a safer society (one where you don't fail at life if your company fails in this scenario) would make people more willing to start a new company, not less.

No, I think you have it all wrong. If my business fails I'm not fucked -- unless I invested every last cent I own into it, which few people would do. Even if I did, I can always go out and get a job.

I doubt the social safety net is much of a factor. The highly motivated people who are going to start successful businesses are not likely to end up on welfare no matter how bad the economy is. But the fact the govt will take half of any money I make is a huge disincentive.
HunterX11
Profile Joined March 2009
United States1048 Posts
September 11 2012 04:10 GMT
#9698
On September 11 2012 13:00 ziggurat wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 11 2012 08:58 HellRoxYa wrote:
On September 11 2012 08:35 ziggurat wrote:
On September 11 2012 07:09 Roe wrote:
On September 11 2012 06:41 xDaunt wrote:
On September 11 2012 06:02 ImAbstracT wrote:

Let's look at the extreme case, where taxes are say, 90%. I'm not recommending that, but just using that as an example. In that case, a business has a huge incentive to continue to invest in the business (which creates deductible expenses) instead of taking money out of the business.

High tax rates favor business investment. Lower tax rates encourage owners to not invest, not hire, and to take money out of the business as fast as they can.

I sure wish just once somebody would explain this basic business principle in the MSM.


Whoever wrote this is just dumb.


Calling someone dumb is a good argument... What he wrote is factually correct. When taxes are low, business hire less (in fact they lay off more), when taxes are high they invest in their company more and the economy of the country is much healthier because you have people actually spending their money instead of hoarding it off shore. Are you simply aware that businesses aren't competent and won't be able to invest their money appropriately, so you argue for these types of regressive policies? I really do want to know from where you get this distorted view of reality.

No. If taxes are high people are incentivized to think "I could work really hard and start a great business ... but I'd lose most of the profits in taxes anyway so why bother?" Or, they think "I'm going to invest my money, should I invest it here where the govt will take a ton of my profits? Or should I invest it offshore where I'll get to keep most of the profits myself?"

Starting a business is a big risk. Many businesses fail. So when a smart person is trying to decide if they will start one or not they look at the possible outcomes, and reasistically assess the risk/reward ratio. For example, say I am considering $1,000,000 in a business and I see the following possible outcomes:

Scenario 1 - 10% chance that this will happen - Huge success - I make $500,000 a year from this business

Scenario 2 - 50% chance that this will happen - moderate success - I make $200,000 a year from this business

Scenario 3 - 40% chance - business fails, I lose my investment

You can make up whatever numbers you want, but if the tax rate is really high a lot of people will simply look at the numbers and decide its not worth it. If tax rates are low people are encouraged to start businesses because the rewards are that much greater if they are successful.


Yet you're forgetting an important part of the equation. Are you fucked if your company does not succeed or not? The higher the taxrate the less likely you are to be fucked if your business fails. I actually find your argument highly lacking due to this.

Also, people are, in general, risk averse, which means that a safer society (one where you don't fail at life if your company fails in this scenario) would make people more willing to start a new company, not less.

No, I think you have it all wrong. If my business fails I'm not fucked -- unless I invested every last cent I own into it, which few people would do. Even if I did, I can always go out and get a job.

I doubt the social safety net is much of a factor. The highly motivated people who are going to start successful businesses are not likely to end up on welfare no matter how bad the economy is. But the fact the govt will take half of any money I make is a huge disincentive.


Is there any evidence that this is true? I don't think it's at all self-evident that people wouldn't want to be more successful if it means being not as much more successful than they might be. The more money you make, the more money you make, even with taxes. Taxes are a percentage. Maybe if the top tax bracket were 90% or something this might come into play, but even when the top tax bracket was that high, an entrepreneur was far from certain to reach it anyway.
Try using both Irradiate and Defensive Matrix on an Overlord. It looks pretty neat.
xDaunt
Profile Joined March 2010
United States17988 Posts
September 11 2012 04:21 GMT
#9699
On September 11 2012 13:10 HunterX11 wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 11 2012 13:00 ziggurat wrote:
On September 11 2012 08:58 HellRoxYa wrote:
On September 11 2012 08:35 ziggurat wrote:
On September 11 2012 07:09 Roe wrote:
On September 11 2012 06:41 xDaunt wrote:
On September 11 2012 06:02 ImAbstracT wrote:

Let's look at the extreme case, where taxes are say, 90%. I'm not recommending that, but just using that as an example. In that case, a business has a huge incentive to continue to invest in the business (which creates deductible expenses) instead of taking money out of the business.

High tax rates favor business investment. Lower tax rates encourage owners to not invest, not hire, and to take money out of the business as fast as they can.

I sure wish just once somebody would explain this basic business principle in the MSM.


Whoever wrote this is just dumb.


Calling someone dumb is a good argument... What he wrote is factually correct. When taxes are low, business hire less (in fact they lay off more), when taxes are high they invest in their company more and the economy of the country is much healthier because you have people actually spending their money instead of hoarding it off shore. Are you simply aware that businesses aren't competent and won't be able to invest their money appropriately, so you argue for these types of regressive policies? I really do want to know from where you get this distorted view of reality.

No. If taxes are high people are incentivized to think "I could work really hard and start a great business ... but I'd lose most of the profits in taxes anyway so why bother?" Or, they think "I'm going to invest my money, should I invest it here where the govt will take a ton of my profits? Or should I invest it offshore where I'll get to keep most of the profits myself?"

Starting a business is a big risk. Many businesses fail. So when a smart person is trying to decide if they will start one or not they look at the possible outcomes, and reasistically assess the risk/reward ratio. For example, say I am considering $1,000,000 in a business and I see the following possible outcomes:

Scenario 1 - 10% chance that this will happen - Huge success - I make $500,000 a year from this business

Scenario 2 - 50% chance that this will happen - moderate success - I make $200,000 a year from this business

Scenario 3 - 40% chance - business fails, I lose my investment

You can make up whatever numbers you want, but if the tax rate is really high a lot of people will simply look at the numbers and decide its not worth it. If tax rates are low people are encouraged to start businesses because the rewards are that much greater if they are successful.


Yet you're forgetting an important part of the equation. Are you fucked if your company does not succeed or not? The higher the taxrate the less likely you are to be fucked if your business fails. I actually find your argument highly lacking due to this.

Also, people are, in general, risk averse, which means that a safer society (one where you don't fail at life if your company fails in this scenario) would make people more willing to start a new company, not less.

No, I think you have it all wrong. If my business fails I'm not fucked -- unless I invested every last cent I own into it, which few people would do. Even if I did, I can always go out and get a job.

I doubt the social safety net is much of a factor. The highly motivated people who are going to start successful businesses are not likely to end up on welfare no matter how bad the economy is. But the fact the govt will take half of any money I make is a huge disincentive.


Is there any evidence that this is true? I don't think it's at all self-evident that people wouldn't want to be more successful if it means being not as much more successful than they might be. The more money you make, the more money you make, even with taxes. Taxes are a percentage. Maybe if the top tax bracket were 90% or something this might come into play, but even when the top tax bracket was that high, an entrepreneur was far from certain to reach it anyway.

Let's wait and see what happens to France when Hollande enacts his confiscatory 75% tax rate on the rich.
HunterX11
Profile Joined March 2009
United States1048 Posts
September 11 2012 04:58 GMT
#9700
On September 11 2012 13:21 xDaunt wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 11 2012 13:10 HunterX11 wrote:
On September 11 2012 13:00 ziggurat wrote:
On September 11 2012 08:58 HellRoxYa wrote:
On September 11 2012 08:35 ziggurat wrote:
On September 11 2012 07:09 Roe wrote:
On September 11 2012 06:41 xDaunt wrote:
On September 11 2012 06:02 ImAbstracT wrote:

Let's look at the extreme case, where taxes are say, 90%. I'm not recommending that, but just using that as an example. In that case, a business has a huge incentive to continue to invest in the business (which creates deductible expenses) instead of taking money out of the business.

High tax rates favor business investment. Lower tax rates encourage owners to not invest, not hire, and to take money out of the business as fast as they can.

I sure wish just once somebody would explain this basic business principle in the MSM.


Whoever wrote this is just dumb.


Calling someone dumb is a good argument... What he wrote is factually correct. When taxes are low, business hire less (in fact they lay off more), when taxes are high they invest in their company more and the economy of the country is much healthier because you have people actually spending their money instead of hoarding it off shore. Are you simply aware that businesses aren't competent and won't be able to invest their money appropriately, so you argue for these types of regressive policies? I really do want to know from where you get this distorted view of reality.

No. If taxes are high people are incentivized to think "I could work really hard and start a great business ... but I'd lose most of the profits in taxes anyway so why bother?" Or, they think "I'm going to invest my money, should I invest it here where the govt will take a ton of my profits? Or should I invest it offshore where I'll get to keep most of the profits myself?"

Starting a business is a big risk. Many businesses fail. So when a smart person is trying to decide if they will start one or not they look at the possible outcomes, and reasistically assess the risk/reward ratio. For example, say I am considering $1,000,000 in a business and I see the following possible outcomes:

Scenario 1 - 10% chance that this will happen - Huge success - I make $500,000 a year from this business

Scenario 2 - 50% chance that this will happen - moderate success - I make $200,000 a year from this business

Scenario 3 - 40% chance - business fails, I lose my investment

You can make up whatever numbers you want, but if the tax rate is really high a lot of people will simply look at the numbers and decide its not worth it. If tax rates are low people are encouraged to start businesses because the rewards are that much greater if they are successful.


Yet you're forgetting an important part of the equation. Are you fucked if your company does not succeed or not? The higher the taxrate the less likely you are to be fucked if your business fails. I actually find your argument highly lacking due to this.

Also, people are, in general, risk averse, which means that a safer society (one where you don't fail at life if your company fails in this scenario) would make people more willing to start a new company, not less.

No, I think you have it all wrong. If my business fails I'm not fucked -- unless I invested every last cent I own into it, which few people would do. Even if I did, I can always go out and get a job.

I doubt the social safety net is much of a factor. The highly motivated people who are going to start successful businesses are not likely to end up on welfare no matter how bad the economy is. But the fact the govt will take half of any money I make is a huge disincentive.


Is there any evidence that this is true? I don't think it's at all self-evident that people wouldn't want to be more successful if it means being not as much more successful than they might be. The more money you make, the more money you make, even with taxes. Taxes are a percentage. Maybe if the top tax bracket were 90% or something this might come into play, but even when the top tax bracket was that high, an entrepreneur was far from certain to reach it anyway.

Let's wait and see what happens to France when Hollande enacts his confiscatory 75% tax rate on the rich.


Aspiring entrepreneurs are not going to be rich unless they inherited a bunch of money already in which case the incentive for making more money is already reduced. Your post is a total non-sequitur.
Try using both Irradiate and Defensive Matrix on an Overlord. It looks pretty neat.
Prev 1 483 484 485 486 487 1504 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 4h
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft: Brood War
Sea 4654
Nal_rA 718
PianO 256
Leta 228
BeSt 98
zelot 80
JulyZerg 74
Sacsri 65
Aegong 54
GoRush 32
[ Show more ]
Bale 21
League of Legends
JimRising 762
Counter-Strike
Stewie2K587
Super Smash Bros
Westballz35
Other Games
summit1g13418
shahzam1088
hungrybox417
WinterStarcraft403
SortOf57
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick1097
BasetradeTV49
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 17 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• practicex 71
• davetesta59
• Kozan
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• sooper7s
• intothetv
• Migwel
• IndyKCrew
StarCraft: Brood War
• iopq 1
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
• BSLYoutube
League of Legends
• Rush1705
• Stunt658
• HappyZerGling76
Other Games
• Scarra3689
Upcoming Events
Sparkling Tuna Cup
4h
WardiTV European League
10h
PiGosaur Monday
18h
OSC
1d 6h
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
1d 10h
The PondCast
2 days
Online Event
2 days
Korean StarCraft League
3 days
CranKy Ducklings
4 days
Online Event
4 days
[ Show More ]
Sparkling Tuna Cup
5 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

BSL 20 Non-Korean Championship
FEL Cracow 2025
Underdog Cup #2

Ongoing

Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL 20 Team Wars
CC Div. A S7
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25

Upcoming

BSL 21 Qualifiers
ASL Season 20: Qualifier #1
ASL Season 20: Qualifier #2
ASL Season 20
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
BSL Season 21
RSL Revival: Season 2
Maestros of the Game
SEL Season 2 Championship
WardiTV Summer 2025
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
HCC Europe
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.