|
|
On October 19 2012 14:06 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 14:04 sam!zdat wrote:On October 19 2012 14:02 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 19 2012 13:59 sam!zdat wrote:On October 19 2012 13:55 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 19 2012 13:29 sam!zdat wrote:On October 19 2012 13:16 jdseemoreglass wrote:
He favors welfare, government financed education, non-aggressive foreign policy! He favors legalized marijuana, legalized prostitution, and opposes bans on 16 ounce sodas! At least you're not a marxist, man. We favor mass starvation, government financed re-education, violent overthrow of the free world, mandatory use of mind control pharmaceuticals, droit de seigneur for all Party members, and bans on 16 ounce sodas! That was all just practice. They were sure they knew best at the time, but designing existence can get prickly. I'm sure eventually the totalitarians, err, I mean progressives will learn how to control people and wealth sufficiently well to make their statist utopia a reality. you realize the Marxist utopia is a stateless one, right? Sure, sure... "society" will runs things, but it won't be governed... lol I'm not advocating anything here, I'm just saying... accusing Marx of envisioning a "statist utopia" is kind of ass backward. So can I tell people they are being ass-backward when they say that anarchism necessitates chaos?
only if you wanna also tell them you're a Marxist 
transitioning directly from a liberal democratic post-industrial etc and etc state to anarchy would necessitate chaos. In terms of the characteristics of their utopias, though, marxists and anarchists are not that opposed (and originally were the same thing - they split at the first international)
|
On October 19 2012 13:16 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 13:09 Souma wrote:On October 19 2012 13:03 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 19 2012 12:41 sam!zdat wrote:On October 19 2012 12:37 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 19 2012 12:28 sam!zdat wrote:On October 19 2012 12:28 TheFrankOne wrote:On October 19 2012 12:20 jdseemoreglass wrote:
There is a difference between pushing through a recession and fostering excessive government induced artificial growth, which establishes a series of bubbles, dot com bubble, financial bubble, housing bubble... When you have artificial growth, a period of flat or dipping GDP growth is not only inevitable, it is necessary. There is a fine line between recession stimulus and bubble creation, and we leap over it every single time. Can you expand on this a bit? Give me some sources to back up your gov spending caused these bubbles claim? he thinks the market is magic by itself and everything bad is because of the government. If something is wrong, the government caused it, qed Standard straw man. Yes but JD you do actually think that. not a keynesian so I have no bone in this fight No, I don't think that at all. Capitalism has negative externalities and failures, government can patch the holes in those failures. Government can also create failures, and often does. Government can raise costs or mis-manipulate the economy. No matter how much people want to paint me as an extremist, it's not going to stick. There's no such thing as a 'non-extreme Libertarian.' It's a paradox. You may not be extreme relative to other Libertarians, but on a typical scale you'd still be considered extreme. Keep slapping that paint on anyway... Ooh, scary libertarian! So extreme! He favors welfare, government financed education, non-aggressive foreign policy! He favors legalized marijuana, legalized prostitution, and opposes bans on 16 ounce sodas! Look, out, crazy nutjob coming through!
Let's see what we can agree on, for the hell of it. I think we should cut the corporate tax rate by a lot, nearly all of it in fact.
|
On October 19 2012 14:13 TheFrankOne wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 13:16 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 19 2012 13:09 Souma wrote:On October 19 2012 13:03 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 19 2012 12:41 sam!zdat wrote:On October 19 2012 12:37 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 19 2012 12:28 sam!zdat wrote:On October 19 2012 12:28 TheFrankOne wrote:On October 19 2012 12:20 jdseemoreglass wrote:
There is a difference between pushing through a recession and fostering excessive government induced artificial growth, which establishes a series of bubbles, dot com bubble, financial bubble, housing bubble... When you have artificial growth, a period of flat or dipping GDP growth is not only inevitable, it is necessary. There is a fine line between recession stimulus and bubble creation, and we leap over it every single time. Can you expand on this a bit? Give me some sources to back up your gov spending caused these bubbles claim? he thinks the market is magic by itself and everything bad is because of the government. If something is wrong, the government caused it, qed Standard straw man. Yes but JD you do actually think that. not a keynesian so I have no bone in this fight No, I don't think that at all. Capitalism has negative externalities and failures, government can patch the holes in those failures. Government can also create failures, and often does. Government can raise costs or mis-manipulate the economy. No matter how much people want to paint me as an extremist, it's not going to stick. There's no such thing as a 'non-extreme Libertarian.' It's a paradox. You may not be extreme relative to other Libertarians, but on a typical scale you'd still be considered extreme. Keep slapping that paint on anyway... Ooh, scary libertarian! So extreme! He favors welfare, government financed education, non-aggressive foreign policy! He favors legalized marijuana, legalized prostitution, and opposes bans on 16 ounce sodas! Look, out, crazy nutjob coming through! Let's see what we can agree on, for the hell of it. I think we should cut the corporate tax rate by a lot, nearly all of it in fact.
how do you feel about capital gains?
|
On October 19 2012 14:14 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 14:13 TheFrankOne wrote:On October 19 2012 13:16 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 19 2012 13:09 Souma wrote:On October 19 2012 13:03 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 19 2012 12:41 sam!zdat wrote:On October 19 2012 12:37 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 19 2012 12:28 sam!zdat wrote:On October 19 2012 12:28 TheFrankOne wrote:On October 19 2012 12:20 jdseemoreglass wrote:
There is a difference between pushing through a recession and fostering excessive government induced artificial growth, which establishes a series of bubbles, dot com bubble, financial bubble, housing bubble... When you have artificial growth, a period of flat or dipping GDP growth is not only inevitable, it is necessary. There is a fine line between recession stimulus and bubble creation, and we leap over it every single time. Can you expand on this a bit? Give me some sources to back up your gov spending caused these bubbles claim? he thinks the market is magic by itself and everything bad is because of the government. If something is wrong, the government caused it, qed Standard straw man. Yes but JD you do actually think that. not a keynesian so I have no bone in this fight No, I don't think that at all. Capitalism has negative externalities and failures, government can patch the holes in those failures. Government can also create failures, and often does. Government can raise costs or mis-manipulate the economy. No matter how much people want to paint me as an extremist, it's not going to stick. There's no such thing as a 'non-extreme Libertarian.' It's a paradox. You may not be extreme relative to other Libertarians, but on a typical scale you'd still be considered extreme. Keep slapping that paint on anyway... Ooh, scary libertarian! So extreme! He favors welfare, government financed education, non-aggressive foreign policy! He favors legalized marijuana, legalized prostitution, and opposes bans on 16 ounce sodas! Look, out, crazy nutjob coming through! Let's see what we can agree on, for the hell of it. I think we should cut the corporate tax rate by a lot, nearly all of it in fact. how do you feel about capital gains?
Up! Up! Up!
Incentivizes reinvestment over dividend payment, especially if there's a sunset on any given tax increase on the capital gains. Basic business school: long term responsibility to shareholders. Any investment that is profitable by the time the tax sunsets looks like a better idea.
|
On October 19 2012 14:13 TheFrankOne wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 13:16 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 19 2012 13:09 Souma wrote:On October 19 2012 13:03 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 19 2012 12:41 sam!zdat wrote:On October 19 2012 12:37 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 19 2012 12:28 sam!zdat wrote:On October 19 2012 12:28 TheFrankOne wrote:On October 19 2012 12:20 jdseemoreglass wrote:
There is a difference between pushing through a recession and fostering excessive government induced artificial growth, which establishes a series of bubbles, dot com bubble, financial bubble, housing bubble... When you have artificial growth, a period of flat or dipping GDP growth is not only inevitable, it is necessary. There is a fine line between recession stimulus and bubble creation, and we leap over it every single time. Can you expand on this a bit? Give me some sources to back up your gov spending caused these bubbles claim? he thinks the market is magic by itself and everything bad is because of the government. If something is wrong, the government caused it, qed Standard straw man. Yes but JD you do actually think that. not a keynesian so I have no bone in this fight No, I don't think that at all. Capitalism has negative externalities and failures, government can patch the holes in those failures. Government can also create failures, and often does. Government can raise costs or mis-manipulate the economy. No matter how much people want to paint me as an extremist, it's not going to stick. There's no such thing as a 'non-extreme Libertarian.' It's a paradox. You may not be extreme relative to other Libertarians, but on a typical scale you'd still be considered extreme. Keep slapping that paint on anyway... Ooh, scary libertarian! So extreme! He favors welfare, government financed education, non-aggressive foreign policy! He favors legalized marijuana, legalized prostitution, and opposes bans on 16 ounce sodas! Look, out, crazy nutjob coming through! Let's see what we can agree on, for the hell of it. I think we should cut the corporate tax rate by a lot, nearly all of it in fact.
Well, I think cutting any tax with our current level of spending is irresponsible. (Yes, I know Romney is advocating that, don't flip out lefties). We do need tax reform, a simple, single tax that is clearly visible to society instead of 10 different taxes on income, profit, property, etc. which disguise and mask the true percentages being paid. The priority is spending, since it is unsustainable spending which necessitates tax increases.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the corporate tax isn't how you want to get the money from the corporate transactions. it's a burden on corporate activity itself, along with the cost of compliance to the big tax code and regulations.
a wealth tax over a certain limit is also an idea that cna incentivize putting money into the actual economy, if you tax certain forms of wealth holdings like, oh, cash.
|
Well I'm glad we're all in agreement here. I agree that corporate tax isn't the way and that capital gains are a very nice thing to tax
edit: how do you guys feel about landed property and the status thereof (I don't have any secret thesis just curious to hear thoughts)
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i think all land rent should be taxed, dunno how to implement that. in general ownership should serve to promote life and correct economic decisions, namely tying decisions with dominant incentives. i do not recognize the sanctity of natural property except when justified by some sort of consequentialist argument over the practical utility of streamlining decisions about resource assignment.
|
On October 19 2012 14:20 oneofthem wrote:
the corporate tax isn't how you want to get the money from the corporate transactions. it's a burden on corporate activity itself, along with the cost of compliance to the big tax code and regulations.
a wealth tax over a certain limit is also an idea that cna incentivize putting money into the actual economy, if you tax certain forms of wealth holdings like, oh, cash.
Yes, a wealth tax does make a lot of sense, but it sounds like an enforcement nightmare. Especially with offshore holdings.
|
On October 19 2012 14:27 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 14:20 oneofthem wrote:
the corporate tax isn't how you want to get the money from the corporate transactions. it's a burden on corporate activity itself, along with the cost of compliance to the big tax code and regulations.
a wealth tax over a certain limit is also an idea that cna incentivize putting money into the actual economy, if you tax certain forms of wealth holdings like, oh, cash. Yes, a wealth tax does make a lot of sense, but it sounds like an enforcement nightmare. Especially with offshore holdings.
don't talk to me about offshore holdings. We should get Romney on the problem he knows so much about it (edit: now you understand the problem about "socialism in one country" and why Marx thought the development of the world market was the necessary precondition of socialism )
On October 19 2012 14:27 oneofthem wrote:
i think all land rent should be taxed, dunno how to implement tat
yeah well get back to me when you figure it out, land use is a big thing for me and I would like to hear any thoughts on the topic 
|
On October 19 2012 14:23 sam!zdat wrote:
Well I'm glad we're all in agreement here
edit: how do you guys feel about landed property and the status thereof (I don't have any secret thesis just curious to hear thoughts)
Well landed property is an asset so I think sales of it would fall under capital gains. (never taken any classes on tax accounting)
As someone who got to experience the fun on an inner city school system (The school fucking ran out of paper towards the end of 3 consecutive years!) I do not like the way (my state anyways) handles using property taxes to finance education in each district because it gives affluent areas far more money there really needs to be some sort of pooling of those funds on a regional basis.
|
yeah, the property tax school system is a big problem, especially with heavily ghettoized cities like the one I grew up in
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
that's why u need vouchers to get your kids away from ghettos. without fixing the problem of course.
|
On October 19 2012 14:36 oneofthem wrote:
that's why u need vouchers to get your kids away from ghettos. without fixing the problem of course.
as harvey says, the bourgeoisie can never fix their problems, they can only move them around
|
On October 19 2012 13:40 TheFrankOne wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 13:10 ticklishmusic wrote:Judging by Mr. Greenspan's remarkably cheerful recent testimony, he still thinks he can pull that off. But the Fed chairman's crystal ball has been cloudy lately; remember how he urged Congress to cut taxes to head off the risk of excessive budget surpluses? And a sober look at recent data is not encouraging.
Why Alan Greenspan, why? I have too much money #firstworldproblems Because excessive surpluses mean less growth. It's over taxation, a government can have significant outstanding debt and it isn't a big deal, that was understood when the country was founded, thanks to Alexander Hamilton we have debt that's been rolling over continuously since we started borrowing money to finance the revolution. Also, those surpluses should largely be gotten rid of by tax cuts. I really doubt Greenspan would have said that if he'd seen two wars coming, I think that's a very dated quote, isn't it? Edit: I made the point about debt to make it clear why we shouldn't have thrown all of our surpluses at the debt when we had them. Edit2: Sorry I was wrong, the US was debt free for one year in 1835. We managed it by selling off land in a bubble! (I wonder where i heard that thing about always having had debt...) http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/04/15/135423586/when-the-u-s-paid-off-the-entire-national-debt-and-why-it-didnt-last
I was kidding, yo. 
We need to raise the effective tax rate and collections. The IRS these days is mostly bark, very little bite it seems.
|
On October 19 2012 14:18 TheFrankOne wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 14:14 sam!zdat wrote:On October 19 2012 14:13 TheFrankOne wrote:On October 19 2012 13:16 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 19 2012 13:09 Souma wrote:On October 19 2012 13:03 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 19 2012 12:41 sam!zdat wrote:On October 19 2012 12:37 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 19 2012 12:28 sam!zdat wrote:On October 19 2012 12:28 TheFrankOne wrote:
[quote]
Can you expand on this a bit? Give me some sources to back up your gov spending caused these bubbles claim? he thinks the market is magic by itself and everything bad is because of the government. If something is wrong, the government caused it, qed Standard straw man. Yes but JD you do actually think that. not a keynesian so I have no bone in this fight No, I don't think that at all. Capitalism has negative externalities and failures, government can patch the holes in those failures. Government can also create failures, and often does. Government can raise costs or mis-manipulate the economy. No matter how much people want to paint me as an extremist, it's not going to stick. There's no such thing as a 'non-extreme Libertarian.' It's a paradox. You may not be extreme relative to other Libertarians, but on a typical scale you'd still be considered extreme. Keep slapping that paint on anyway... Ooh, scary libertarian! So extreme! He favors welfare, government financed education, non-aggressive foreign policy! He favors legalized marijuana, legalized prostitution, and opposes bans on 16 ounce sodas! Look, out, crazy nutjob coming through! Let's see what we can agree on, for the hell of it. I think we should cut the corporate tax rate by a lot, nearly all of it in fact. how do you feel about capital gains? Up! Up! Up! Incentivizes reinvestment over dividend payment, especially if there's a sunset on any given tax increase on the capital gains. Basic business school: long term responsibility to shareholders. Any investment that is profitable by the time the tax sunsets looks like a better idea.
I don't see how that would work. The tax incentive to invest cash rather than give it to shareholders would be offset by the larger dividends demanded by the shareholders.
Could you give an example as to how it would create the incentives you want?
|
Alright guys, one last time I need help to clarify something too make sure it is true or not! Romney has been going against Obama's bailout that he gave companies and someone just messaged me saying that Romney actually was one of the people who gained off of the bailouts.
http://www.thenation.com/article/170644/mitt-romneys-bailout-bonanza#
This is the article that I was able to find that I am thinking my friend sent me but I am not going to take it for face value. If it is true, how damaging would this be? Has it been on any media outlets in America?
|
On October 19 2012 16:34 Shelke14 wrote:Alright guys, one last time I need help to clarify something too make sure it is true or not! Romney has been going against Obama's bailout that he gave companies and someone just messaged me saying that Romney actually was one of the people who gained off of the bailouts. http://www.thenation.com/article/170644/mitt-romneys-bailout-bonanza#This is the article that I was able to find that I am thinking my friend sent me but I am not going to take it for face value. If it is true, how damaging would this be? Has it been on any media outlets in America?
Romney has been against the bailout from the get go and only after it was 100% successful did he try to change his arguement and claim that he was in favor of it the entire time and try to take credit for it.
First I'm hearing that he actually profited off the bailout though. Not sure if I would believe the article though.
|
On October 19 2012 15:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 14:18 TheFrankOne wrote:On October 19 2012 14:14 sam!zdat wrote:On October 19 2012 14:13 TheFrankOne wrote:On October 19 2012 13:16 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 19 2012 13:09 Souma wrote:On October 19 2012 13:03 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 19 2012 12:41 sam!zdat wrote:On October 19 2012 12:37 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 19 2012 12:28 sam!zdat wrote:
[quote]
he thinks the market is magic by itself and everything bad is because of the government. If something is wrong, the government caused it, qed Standard straw man. Yes but JD you do actually think that. not a keynesian so I have no bone in this fight No, I don't think that at all. Capitalism has negative externalities and failures, government can patch the holes in those failures. Government can also create failures, and often does. Government can raise costs or mis-manipulate the economy. No matter how much people want to paint me as an extremist, it's not going to stick. There's no such thing as a 'non-extreme Libertarian.' It's a paradox. You may not be extreme relative to other Libertarians, but on a typical scale you'd still be considered extreme. Keep slapping that paint on anyway... Ooh, scary libertarian! So extreme! He favors welfare, government financed education, non-aggressive foreign policy! He favors legalized marijuana, legalized prostitution, and opposes bans on 16 ounce sodas! Look, out, crazy nutjob coming through! Let's see what we can agree on, for the hell of it. I think we should cut the corporate tax rate by a lot, nearly all of it in fact. how do you feel about capital gains? Up! Up! Up! Incentivizes reinvestment over dividend payment, especially if there's a sunset on any given tax increase on the capital gains. Basic business school: long term responsibility to shareholders. Any investment that is profitable by the time the tax sunsets looks like a better idea. I don't see how that would work. The tax incentive to invest cash rather than give it to shareholders would be offset by the larger dividends demanded by the shareholders.
I think that's what the tax sunset thing is about but I'm out of my element here so I'll let him speak for himself
|
No one actually pays the corporate tax. The largest companies pay an effective tax rate of less than 5%. The 40% number is just a facade.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
