EPTI do agree with Savio though about government working better when it's divided. The creation of conflict can have its negatives but it can also serve to the advantage of the public forcing sides to make compromises and I would hope better policies, also keeping in check other problems of corruption etc..
2008 US Presidential Election - Page 6
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
XoXiDe
United States620 Posts
I do agree with Savio though about government working better when it's divided. The creation of conflict can have its negatives but it can also serve to the advantage of the public forcing sides to make compromises and I would hope better policies, also keeping in check other problems of corruption etc.. | ||
|
evandi
United States266 Posts
On October 14 2008 05:52 oneofthem wrote: baww they are giving our moneyz to the poor! Ya, away from people who earned it towards people who didn't. It takes away the incentive to work hard and innovate. | ||
|
D10
Brazil3409 Posts
On October 14 2008 07:16 evandi wrote: Ya, away from people who earned it towards people who didn't. It takes away the incentive to work hard and innovate. Meh, thats old, can you show me some 21 century argument of why is it a bad idea to tax the rich while giving tax breaks to the poor on a job crisis ? | ||
|
evandi
United States266 Posts
On October 14 2008 07:22 D10 wrote: Meh, thats old, can you show me some 21 century argument of why is it a bad idea to tax the rich while giving tax breaks to the poor on a job crisis ? Its true. If you tax people for earning more they are less likely to strive to... earn more. The poor don't pay income taxes. | ||
|
ahrara_
Afghanistan1715 Posts
On October 14 2008 07:28 evandi wrote: Its true. If you tax people for earning more they are less likely to strive to... earn more. The poor don't pay income taxes. That is an extremely simplistic and mostly nonsensical interpretation. D10, a better explanation is: 1.) It creates incentives to hide that money in foreign bank accounts and foreign investments. 2.) It discourages investment in American business, because you can always invest somewhere else with less taxes. My view with any economic policy is that growth should not be an end. I think you have to find a balance between encouraging growth and the humanitarian cost. Given that since the mid 70's almost all real increases in income have gone to the top 10% households, I don't think it could hurt to shift the tax burden more towards the upper echelon. | ||
|
evandi
United States266 Posts
On October 14 2008 07:39 ahrara_ wrote: That is an extremely simplistic and mostly nonsensical interpretation. D10, a better explanation is: 1.) It creates incentives to hide that money in foreign bank accounts and foreign investments. 2.) It discourages investment in American business, because you can always invest somewhere else with less taxes. My view with any economic policy is that growth should not be an end. I think you have to find a balance between encouraging growth and the humanitarian cost. Given that since the mid 70's almost all real increases in income have gone to the top 10% households, I don't think it could hurt to shift the tax burden more towards the upper echelon. Oh, just shut up Arhuru. I gave a short response to a short claim. If anyone wants to argue with my claims they can. I don't have to write a fucking novel in every post. Get off your fucking high horse. EDIT: And if you are unaware of the fact that tax breaks for people who don't pay taxes is a nonsensical thing, you are an idiot. | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
| ||
|
ahrara_
Afghanistan1715 Posts
You posted something that made no economic sense. Just cause your conclusions were right doesn't make you right. What you posted is like saying "omg tanks are really good in TvP because they do 85 damage". It's just incredibly shallow, misrepresents your own point of view, and reveals your ignorance. | ||
|
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
On October 13 2008 05:04 fusionsdf wrote: how about we all agree to ignore evandi this thread? I think everyone here thinks hes an idiot/troll, so lets not derail for 20 pages arguing stupid points you guys were doing so good | ||
|
SnK-Arcbound
United States4423 Posts
On October 14 2008 07:39 ahrara_ wrote: My view with any economic policy is that growth should not be an end. I think you have to find a balance between encouraging growth and the humanitarian cost. Given that since the mid 70's almost all real increases in income have gone to the top 10% households, I don't think it could hurt to shift the tax burden more towards the upper echelon. If you shift it, the rich leave the country, and so do the companies. You are lucky if you can tax the rich, because they can just pick up and get out. The top 5% of Americans pay 75% of all taxes. The rich hold this country up, going in to fuck them isn't just a bad idea, it is suicidal. So saying that you are shifting the tax burden is false, the tax burden already falls heavily on them, go too far and you will screw yourself over. On October 14 2008 04:28 nimysa wrote: Reagan was a horrible president, I mean Iran-contra, star wars, trickle-down economics etc etc and loads of other stuff. Iran-contra wasn't illegal, and you all obviously forget what the largest problem was socialism, and the reason why we are the only super power leaving the soviet era is because of what Reagan did. If you like America being the only super power, you need to thank Regan. | ||
|
evandi
United States266 Posts
On October 14 2008 07:43 ahrara_ wrote: Don't wet yourself now. You posted something that made no economic sense. Just cause your conclusions were right doesn't make you right. What you posted is like saying "omg tanks are really good in TvP because they do 85 damage". It's just incredibly shallow, misrepresents your own point of view, and reveals your ignorance. Right, no you're all wet. You're putting on this show because you think your really smart. There is nothing whatsoever nonsensical about the phrase: Its true. If you tax people for earning more they are less likely to strive to... earn more. There is something nonsensical about cutting taxes for people who don't pay them. Shows your ignorance. | ||
|
ahrara_
Afghanistan1715 Posts
On October 14 2008 07:40 evandi wrote: EDIT: And if you are unaware of the fact that tax breaks for people who don't pay taxes is a nonsensical thing, you are an idiot. Goddamn man you need to check your fucking insecurity at the door. I don't give a shit if some people aren't well informed about world events or the economy. It only bothers me when they talk about these things like they have a clue. When you're wrong, just admit you're wrong. A little humility wouldn't hurt. We're not talking about the extremely low income who pay no taxes. We're talking about middle class families. In the time it took you to rationalize your strawman you could've read everyone's posts again and figured it out. | ||
|
evandi
United States266 Posts
On October 14 2008 07:48 ahrara_ wrote: Goddamn man you need to check your fucking insecurity at the door. I don't give a shit if some people aren't well informed about world events or the economy. It only bothers me when they talk about these things like they have a clue. When you're wrong, just admit you're wrong. A little humility wouldn't hurt. We're not talking about the extremely low income who pay no taxes. We're talking about middle class families. In the time it took you to rationalize your strawman you could've read everyone's posts again and figured it out. The person I was responding to said specifically: POOR. You are just itching to jump all over everything I say. EDIT: So I guess that makes you, insecure. When you're wrong, just admit you're wrong. A little humility wouldn't hurt. | ||
|
Fzero
United States1503 Posts
| ||
|
SnK-Arcbound
United States4423 Posts
On October 14 2008 07:48 ahrara_ wrote: Goddamn man you need to check your fucking insecurity at the door. I don't give a shit if some people aren't well informed about world events or the economy. It only bothers me when they talk about these things like they have a clue. When you're wrong, just admit you're wrong. A little humility wouldn't hurt. We're not talking about the extremely low income who pay no taxes. We're talking about middle class families. In the time it took you to rationalize your strawman you could've read everyone's posts again and figured it out. Roughly 50% of Americans pay little to no taxes. edit: On October 14 2008 07:54 FzeroXx wrote: If you think everyone making less than 250k is poor, fuck off. I fail to understand what this even means in the context of your rant. | ||
|
evandi
United States266 Posts
On October 14 2008 07:54 FzeroXx wrote: I'd be happy to listen to any argument from a conservative about fiscal conservatism (what their party supposedly runs on), but if you're coming in my face with "OMG Obama raises taxes he's democrat!! LOLZ" then gtfo. If you think everyone making less than 250k is poor, fuck off. There are hundreds of thousands of people in every state in that situation. If you honestly think someone won't want to be a CEO because their 6 million dollar salary will get a 40% tax, you're insane. Hardly anyone at that level gets paid in pure money, benefits and reinvestment in the company are all loopholes to get much more than your "salary" says. I'm hardly against people doing well, I just don't like the idea that if you give the top 1% all the money it somehow makes the country successful. You can't continuously ignore 80% of your population and hope the top 20% makes your GDP skyrocket so all your buddies can be uber-rich. Eventually that shit catches up to you.. news flash -- most people don't give a shit about conservative ideas.. they're just scared of new things. In reality people make decisions on what to strive for. People sacrifice time and effort to become a CEO. They sacrifice time they might otherwise spend doing something like playing Starcraft. Its a high paying job because its really hard to be qualified enough to get it. People who innovate don't just say "whoops, that there is cool!" because "Genius is 1% inspiration and 99% persperation" Ambitious people work hard their entire lives forsaking a lot of things that less ambitious people pursue. They are less likely to make sacrifices if the reward is smaller. That would be hard to argue against. | ||
|
ahrara_
Afghanistan1715 Posts
On October 14 2008 07:47 evandi wrote: Right, no you're all wet. You're putting on this show because you think your really smart. There is nothing whatsoever nonsensical about the phrase: Its true. If you tax people for earning more they are less likely to strive to... earn more. There is something nonsensical about cutting taxes for people who don't pay them. Shows your ignorance. you sound like a ten year old. calm the fuck down and stop being a prick. it's possible to defend conservatism without being a retard. if you could give your posts anything remotely resembling substance, you'd have a LOT more respect around here. not to mention if you were a little more RESPECTFUL and less defensive over every little thing. as for my intelligence, there are several posters on TL who are better informed than me. i've got my ass slapped around for ignorance or getting my facts wrong many times past but i didn't respond by going apeshit and getting all defensive. you need to shape up. Here's a great example of what you should've done: If you shift it, the rich leave the country, and so do the companies. You are lucky if you can tax the rich, because they can just pick up and get out. The top 5% of Americans pay 75% of all taxes. The rich hold this country up, going in to fuck them isn't just a bad idea, it is suicidal. So saying that you are shifting the tax burden is false, the tax burden already falls heavily on them, go too far and you will screw yourself over. I think you've simplified the idea too much. First, American is kind of an exception in regards to its economy. The comparative stability of its economy, its regulatory transparency, and the large disposable income of its people are all incentives that outweigh the cost of the tax burdens. Second, where else do you take your money? Investment in America may not be as profitable as emerging markets, but it is significantly less risky. Taxes are even higher in Europe. Third, there are costs associated with "moving" your business elsewhere that make the shift unprofitable. When you've already built a factory here to get around tariff barriers, invested millions in marketing, it's not worthwhile to move out of the country. Finally, 62.5% of the world's reserves are valued in American dollars. People view the dollar as a very safe bet, so the high demand for the dollar will fuel American investment. P.S. Where did you get your statistic about the taxes? To be fair and reciprocal, my numbers came from the CIA world factbook. | ||
|
aRod
United States758 Posts
| ||
|
Fzero
United States1503 Posts
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a7/United_States_Income_Distribution_1967-2003.svg/800px-United_States_Income_Distribution_1967-2003.svg.png) Not really up to date, but it gets the point across. 5% of households made more than 160k in 2003. Let's just assume that number is 250k in 2008. (It isn't).. Those 5% could well pay 75% of the taxes in total because the top 1% of that 5% has more than 50% of the wealth in the US. You know what they care about? Their fifty million investment in google dropping 40% in the last year. You really think they care if they pay another $2 million in taxes so long as they have a job market that pays them 8-10 mil a year? They're in the US because of the ease of making money. The only other places you can make money like this country are in REALLY fucked up illegal activities or oil (Russia/Mid east). Edit: Found this-- "While households in the top 1.5% of households had incomes exceeding $250,000, 443% above the national median, their incomes were still 2200% lower than those of the top .01% of houseolds. One can therefore conclude that any household, even those with incomes of $250,000 annually are relatively poor when compared to the top .1%, who in turn are relatively poor compared to the top 0.000267%, the top 400 taxpaying households." | ||
|
evandi
United States266 Posts
And stop going off message. If you want to be my teacher give me a fucking PM so I can ignore it. | ||
| ||
