| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
FuTon
United States308 Posts
On October 27 2011 03:40 Kamille wrote: That's apparently an ad. The smoking is funny, but the end is just too much. LOL. That ad is too ****ing funny. Herman Cain's campaign chief of staff is trying to promote smoking??? And the creepy face at the end really made laugh out loud. | ||
|
thebigdonkey
United States354 Posts
On October 17 2011 04:58 Kiarip wrote: EDIT: ok i'm sorry I'll edit it: Here's the real argument, stop putting words in people's mouths that they're not saying. Liberals are arguing that a flat sales tax forces the poor to pay more... but in reality this isn't true, it's a flat tax... The rich can only ENJOY their wealth if they SPEND IT. So if you have a sales tax whenever someone spends they WILL pay the taxes.... what's good of having tons of money if you can't spend it? The whole point of getting rid of income tax and instead relying on sales tax is that the money that's not spent is the money that grows the economy... So if the sales tax only taxes the money that people use on themselves not the money that ends up growing the economy... sure the rich can get even richer with the money they have, but once they go to SPEND that money they will still pay the same proportionate taxes as the poor... It's not. the solution to defecit is to cut spending. But the reason that sales taxes are better than income taxes, is because contrary to what Keynesian philosophy has been teaching us (and failing us for so long) -- that money spent is money that helps the economy, it is in fact money SAVED that grows the economy. If someone makes a million a year and only spends 100,000 a year consistently, what's the difference between that person and a person that's making 100,000 and spending all of his money? Well in terms of how much they can enjoy their wealth, there's really no difference, each person receives 100,000 dollars worth of stuff... Just having money doesn't bring wealth/prosperity... SPENDING money brings wealth. When a money isn't spent it's probably in a bank or is invested somewhere, meaning that it eventually get lended to people that are trying to create or grow their businesses, which will invevitably create jobs. By removing the income tax and replacing it with sales tax, the government only collects money from the portion that people spend on themselves, the portion that ends up helping the economy, and creating jobs isn't taxed. Or it could throw us into a deflationary spiral. No big deal. | ||
|
Supamang
United States2298 Posts
On October 17 2011 04:58 Kiarip wrote: It's not. the solution to defecit is to cut spending. But the reason that sales taxes are better than income taxes, is because contrary to what Keynesian philosophy has been teaching us (and failing us for so long) -- that money spent is money that helps the economy, it is in fact money SAVED that grows the economy. If someone makes a million a year and only spends 100,000 a year consistently, what's the difference between that person and a person that's making 100,000 and spending all of his money? Well in terms of how much they can enjoy their wealth, there's really no difference, each person receives 100,000 dollars worth of stuff... Just having money doesn't bring wealth/prosperity... SPENDING money brings wealth. When a money isn't spent it's probably in a bank or is invested somewhere, meaning that it eventually get lended to people that are trying to create or grow their businesses, which will invevitably create jobs. By removing the income tax and replacing it with sales tax, the government only collects money from the portion that people spend on themselves, the portion that ends up helping the economy, and creating jobs isn't taxed. I have a HUGE issue with what you say here. It goes against common business logic. You simply CANT grow a business on equity or debt alone. Yea, people who are willing to lend or invest into businesses can help to grow them immensely. There is no doubt about that. However, it is the consumers Spending money that actually allows them to continue their operations. If a business borrows a lot of money, sure they get a huge inflow of cash in the short term. However, eventually the lenders will ask for their money back (plus interest). How will the companies pay back the lenders if they dont make sales (aka. if consumers dont SPEND)? Or if people just invest equity into businesses, they will start looking for returns. Obviously they cant demand the same way a lender could, but people will realize that the business is an awful investment if there are no sales and thus no returns for the money they invest. Of course, they could just ask for more equity investment to pay off the old investors, but that would be a Ponzi scheme. Sales are the absolute, bottom-line, essential for business growth, NOT investing. If people arent SPENDING, businesses will not gain the revenues needed to pay their lenders/investors back and eventually people will stop putting their money into the businesses. Investment aids growth, but Spending is the thing that actually facilitates it. Edit: On October 17 2011 04:58 Kiarip wrote: EDIT: ok i'm sorry I'll edit it: Here's the real argument, stop putting words in people's mouths that they're not saying. Liberals are arguing that a flat sales tax forces the poor to pay more... but in reality this isn't true, it's a flat tax... The rich can only ENJOY their wealth if they SPEND IT. So if you have a sales tax whenever someone spends they WILL pay the taxes.... what's good of having tons of money if you can't spend it? The whole point of getting rid of income tax and instead relying on sales tax is that the money that's not spent is the money that grows the economy... So if the sales tax only taxes the money that people use on themselves not the money that ends up growing the economy... sure the rich can get even richer with the money they have, but once they go to SPEND that money they will still pay the same proportionate taxes as the poor... A flat tax WILL make poor people pay more. For example, lets look at a low income, single guy making 20K a year. Under our current tax system, he could take a Standard Deduction ($5,800) and a Personal Exemption ($3,650). He is then taxed on the remaining $10,550. The first $8,500 is taxed at 10%, the rest is taxed at 15%. This means his tax burden is ($8,500 * 0.10) + ($2,050 * 0.15) = $1,157.50. His effective tax rate is therefore ($1,157.50 / $20,000) = 5.79%. Unless a flat tax is incredibly low, the poor people of this country will be paying more taxes. If were talking about Cain's 999 plan, not only would the 9% be higher than the example above, we would also need to add on a 9% sales tax as well. This would hurt low and middle-income Americans a lot. | ||
|
SoLaR[i.C]
United States2969 Posts
On October 27 2011 05:31 FuTon wrote: LOL. That ad is too ****ing funny. Herman Cain's campaign chief of staff is trying to promote smoking??? And the creepy face at the end really made laugh out loud. The smoking is significant because there's a backstory to it. You can read about it here: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/10/for-real-herman-cain-ad-shows-chief-of-staff-smoking-a-cigarette/247298/ | ||
|
Ballack
Norway821 Posts
| ||
|
Kiarip
United States1835 Posts
On October 27 2011 06:05 Supamang wrote: I have a HUGE issue with what you say here. It goes against common business logic. You simply CANT grow a business on equity or debt alone. Yea, people who are willing to lend or invest into businesses can help to grow them immensely. There is no doubt about that. However, it is the consumers Spending money that actually allows them to continue their operations. If a business borrows a lot of money, sure they get a huge inflow of cash in the short term. However, eventually the lenders will ask for their money back (plus interest). How will the companies pay back the lenders if they dont make sales (aka. if consumers dont SPEND)? No this isnt' true. It's true that if one particular thing no longer gets bought by customers, then yes that business is gonna suffer losses, but if people start saving their money, then it constricts the monetary supply in rotation, thus increasing the value of currency with respect to products available in the marketplace that are trying to get sold, so the prices will have to drop across the board. Think about it, if the rich are just simply sitting on their money right now, but then all of them decide to spend all of it all of a sudden will ti be good or bad for the average joe? The amount of products in the marketplace won't increase.. but the amount of money will, that means all the people that DOn"T have all that money saved up will simply get priced out of the market by the people that have a lot more, becasue as the supply of money increases for all the products (since the rich are sitting on such a significant portion of total equity,) all the prices will go up considerably, and then people that don't have all that mone won't be able to afford anything. You're right about having to pay back interests, but that's why it's not a good time to grow the economy right now, and why stimuli will continue to fail and only make the situation worse. When the majority of people have debt it should create the natural free market incentive to save money and pay off debts (via higher interest rates,) Then when money is saved up, banks will ahve to lower rates in order to remain in business (otherwise the banks justh ave to keep paying the interest rates.) So when money is saved up interest rates drop, and borrowing becomes worthwhile again, so people try to make businesses, adn if they have a good business model other peopel will use their money to buy the businesses' products. This isn't the situation we're in right now however, right now we're in a situation where people don't have much money. The rich have money. Small business owners don't have much money either. if the rich come in to buy out all the resources for their own investments, then all the small business owners won't be able to buy the resources necessary to maintain their business, then they will go out of business, other people will lose jobs, and then when ti coems to the rich trying to get back the return on their investment, they will fall short, because they have less than expected customers. Meanwhile if the rich sit on their money, the money supply in rotation is constrained, the prices go down (hedging inflation or even causing some deflation,) this resulting in people who DON'T have debt having a significant gain in theri purchasing power. Obviously people with debt, are going to be in trouble and may have to default, which will result in banks having to default, but this is nearly inevitable at this point, because the federal reserve has been burrying the banks now for a long time by forcing them to give out such low interest loans. Or if people just invest equity into businesses, they will start looking for returns. Obviously they cant demand the same way a lender could, but people will realize that the business is an awful investment if there are no sales and thus no returns for the money they invest. Of course, they could just ask for more equity investment to pay off the old investors, but that would be a Ponzi scheme. Which is why, while people are in debt (which is a direct result of the forced low interest rates,) it's not a good idea to invest in anything, because debt implies decreased consumption in the future. So we don't need to worry about taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor, because if we do that it will simply increase the amount of money that people in total are willing to spend on what's already in the market, but ti won't increase the productivity, it will simply increase the inflation (price per existing good.) Instead you want to allow interest rates to go up, and let hte economy correct itself, by having people save money and repay their debt, or force them to default on it (instead of continually borrowing more money to pay the interest for their pre-existing principles which in the end once again will only burry the banking institutions, which as you may have guessed I am strongly against bailing out) Sales are the absolute, bottom-line, essential for business growth, NOT investing. If people arent SPENDING, businesses will not gain the revenues needed to pay their lenders/investors back and eventually people will stop putting their money into the businesses. Investment aids growth, but Spending is the thing that actually facilitates it. People shouldnt have to put money into businesses in order for businesses to exist, only in order for them to grow. Otherwise you have a shitty business model, a business needs to be not only self-sustainable, but profitable. Of course it's hard for a business to be profitable when there's so little people that could spend money, but that's what all these mal-investments driven by the FED have resulted in... You need to allow the economy to correct itself before you can start trying to business again, trying to force growth will only result in more bubbles. A flat tax WILL make poor people pay more. For example, lets look at a low income, single guy making 20K a year. Under our current tax system, he could take a Standard Deduction ($5,800) and a Personal Exemption ($3,650). He is then taxed on the remaining $10,550. The first $8,500 is taxed at 10%, the rest is taxed at 15%. This means his tax burden is ($8,500 * 0.10) + ($2,050 * 0.15) = $1,157.50. His effective tax rate is therefore ($1,157.50 / $20,000) = 5.79%. Unless a flat tax is incredibly low, the poor people of this country will be paying more taxes. If were talking about Cain's 999 plan, not only would the 9% be higher than the example above, we would also need to add on a 9% sales tax as well. This would hurt low and middle-income Americans a lot. Last edit: 2011-10-27 06:17:18 I agree, the poor can't afford to pay more right NOW. I'm saying in general sales tax is better for economy than income tax. Right now, we need to cut taxes in general, and cut spending even more, while removing regulations which make our businesses uncompetitive. | ||
|
KoTakUEurO
605 Posts
On October 02 2011 07:05 Playguuu wrote: To be fair, they are all joke candidates. just a matter of who is the least radical | ||
|
Kiarip
United States1835 Posts
On October 27 2011 06:29 KoTakUEurO wrote: just a matter of who is the least radical how is status quo better than radical given the situation we've been falling into with consistently status quo presidents? | ||
|
Amaroq64
United States75 Posts
how is status quo better than radical given the situation we've been falling into with consistently status quo presidents? Indeed. What America needs most right now is a radical for Capitalism and the free market. We've had enough of the liberals' radical socialism and the conservatives' cowardly appeasement. | ||
|
thebigdonkey
United States354 Posts
On October 27 2011 06:40 Amaroq64 wrote: I haven't done a lot of research on the candidates yet. But I like Cain from what I've seen of him. It actually seems like we might have a candidate who will defend our individual rights for once. Even though he contradicts that hope of mine by not being supportive of abortion or gay marriage. Indeed. What America needs most right now is a radical for Capitalism and the free market. We've had enough of the liberals' radical socialism and the conservatives' cowardly appeasement. Change for the sake of change...the basis for every campaign. | ||
Kordox
Denmark142 Posts
| ||
|
Romulox
United States125 Posts
| ||
|
Kiarip
United States1835 Posts
On October 27 2011 06:58 Romulox wrote: I kinda hope he does get elected, not that I agree with anything he has to say or that I think any of his policies are helpful in the short or long term either, it would just be great from have president 1-43 be white and have 2 in a row be black and for them to have about as opposing views as two candidates can have. I also think there is no chance in hell he will win but that's what I thought about Bush W in '04 and well...Please RNC at least put this guy on the ticket! But on a serious note its kinda sad the republicans who have controlled this country and its policies for the better part of 50 years seem to have no candidates capable of actually winning a general election. Oh how the mighty have fallen. the republicans haven't controlled the country for the past 50 years. I haven't done a lot of research on the candidates yet. But I like Cain from what I've seen of him. It actually seems like we might have a candidate who will defend our individual rights for once. Even though he contradicts that hope of mine by not being supportive of abortion or gay marriage. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- how is status quo better than radical given the situation we've been falling into with consistently status quo presidents? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Indeed. What America needs most right now is a radical for Capitalism and the free market. We've had enough of the liberals' radical socialism and the conservatives' cowardly appeasement Cain is a corporotist not a capitalist. He hasn't done anything to defend individuals' rights... simply beign black doesn't count, and he's for militarism. also like it has been said he simply says what will get him the most support, which makes him appear extremely self-contradicting, I don't know why he hasn't been picked apart on this matter yet. | ||
|
wDDelete
103 Posts
Agree or disagree with Obama presidency but hes one badass candidate. The fact that not one democrat is enough of a heavy hitter to challenge Obama supports this notion. When it comes to the republicans, none of these chumps have a chance or the power to rally their party behind them. The notion of the flavor of the month clearly shows the conservatives don't like their own republican field. We need our presidents to be exceptional people. Half of these candidates cant even answer questions that even highschoolers can knock out of the park. Give me a break, its a joke. On a side note, I don't include Ron Paul with these clowns. As a progressive, I have huge issues with Ron Paul but he is one of the very few politicians with integrity, other being Bernie Sanders. The only problem with these guys is they'll get chewed up in the office. The corporate machine and the bought congress is too much for any person to overcome. | ||
|
darthfoley
United States7999 Posts
| ||
|
Xiphos
Canada7507 Posts
| ||
|
KevinBacon
Portugal48 Posts
| ||
|
shinosai
United States1577 Posts
I watched this video, and I don't think Herman Cain listened to the whole song. His views seem antithetical to it, actually. I mean, he's basically attacking the poor people for protesting, and then you have lines like this in the song. What was he thinking? "pay no attention to the people in the street crying out for accountability, make a joke out of what we believe, say we don't matter cause you disagree" | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
| ||
|
adacan
United States117 Posts
| ||
| ||
[ Submit Event ] |
|
|
|
CranKy Ducklings
SOOP
herO vs Cure
SC Evo Complete
PassionCraft
BSL: ProLeague
Sziky vs Dienmax
Jimin vs RaNgeD
CSO Cup
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV Invitational
Online Event
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
