02 Oct 2011, 12:00 am
Inuyasha wrote:
Joker wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Joker wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Joker wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Joker wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Joker wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Joker wrote:
No one decides whats best for me or whats best for my health that's my decision to make not the government.
Well if the individual mandate is Constitutional, Government can do precisely that.
Then I will gladly rebel against the Government the Constitution is very overrated in my views its the security blanket of America.
I support our military I do not support the Government.
Actually, I think the US Supreme Court (barring Obama being able to stack the Supreme Court with his cronies due to "sudden departures" of Justices) is going to find the Individual Mandate and possibly all of Obamacare unconstitutional.
The Constitution is an amazing document, it puts into writing limits on the powers of Government, and is a safeguard for our rights.
But it doesn't secure our rights not for the lower or middle class America that gets treated second rate compared to the higher class and wealthy.
WHO PAY MORE TAXES THEN THE RICH.
Well what you are proposing would lock people into the middle class or poverty, because you would hit anyone that made a lot of money suddenly so they couldn't go from middle class to wealthy.
Look at Herman Cain for instance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Cain
If you lived in the Ghetto all your life you would want the same thing
But increasing taxes actually hurts those that are going up out of poverty or going from middle class to being wealthy, cause the rich already have their money. You're just locking people into a class system.
Please, explain how that works.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Simple, the rich already have their money, a middle class person would have to have a sudden rise in income to become wealthy, same with someone in poverty, however you're proposing these people get taxed big time for the sudden increase in income. Thus you are punishing people for being successful.
Most people who are rich where born into a rich family and didnt earn a dime on their own with out having mommy and daddy give them everything haha their called rich kids for a reason I was in a gang once we beat down a rich kid who raped a girl at my school gave her family shut up money but he got what he deserved from me and my friends justice was served 
According to Thomas J. Stanley's book, "The Millionaire Next Door: The Surprising Secrets of America's Wealthy," only 20% of millionaires inherited their riches. The other 80% are what you'd call nouveau riche: first-generation millionaires who earned their cash on their own. Many millionaires simply worked, saved, and lived within their means to generate their wealth -- think accountants and managers: regular people going to work every day. Most millionaires didn't get their riches overnight when a rich relative died -- they worked for the money.
http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budget ... -budgeting
Thats how it used to be but the fact is it isnt that way any more
The reason why it isn't is government, between picking winners and losers and all the new red tape, it's a wonder we don't have 50% unemployment.
Right now people are missing the point that hiking taxes is only going to make things worse and the low tax rates for the rich is not the issue. It's all the stupid regulations that are the issue.
Here I will give you a grown up response but I fear I am throwing it away cuz you never respond only squawk.
The Idea that increasing taxes make revenues go down is called the Laffer curve.
The Idea is when the tax rate is 0% or 100% tax revenue is 0.
because it is 0 and both end and greater than 0 in the middle it must be a curve of some sort.
Laffer thought we were on the descending side of it so any decrease in tax rate would make an increase in revenue.
This is what I say the curve is based on expected returns i.e. how much more money will you make next year if I let you keep your money this year follow?
So the Laffer curve is based on expected returns or growth rate of the economy.
turns out if you expected profit is very high like 100% or more the optimal tax rate ends up being about 11%
this fits so well with visagrunts idea about corporate tax rates because companies can sometime turn profits like that.
People on the other hand salary-slaves like you and me can are lucky if we can make 5% on the market
and sadly when your expected profit is that low the optimal tax rate approaches 100%
meaning that investment income is not that important to protect.
about the regulation kinda a vague argument there kiddo which regulation?
lets get to brass tacks not magic bogeyman
regulation bad.
Obama bad.
hulk smash.
is not really an argument now is it?
Joker
Veteran
Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)
02 Oct 2011, 12:05 am
JakobVirgil wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Joker wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Joker wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Joker wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Joker wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Joker wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Joker wrote:
No one decides whats best for me or whats best for my health that's my decision to make not the government.
Well if the individual mandate is Constitutional, Government can do precisely that.
Then I will gladly rebel against the Government the Constitution is very overrated in my views its the security blanket of America.
I support our military I do not support the Government.
Actually, I think the US Supreme Court (barring Obama being able to stack the Supreme Court with his cronies due to "sudden departures" of Justices) is going to find the Individual Mandate and possibly all of Obamacare unconstitutional.
The Constitution is an amazing document, it puts into writing limits on the powers of Government, and is a safeguard for our rights.
But it doesn't secure our rights not for the lower or middle class America that gets treated second rate compared to the higher class and wealthy.
WHO PAY MORE TAXES THEN THE RICH.
Well what you are proposing would lock people into the middle class or poverty, because you would hit anyone that made a lot of money suddenly so they couldn't go from middle class to wealthy.
Look at Herman Cain for instance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Cain
If you lived in the Ghetto all your life you would want the same thing
But increasing taxes actually hurts those that are going up out of poverty or going from middle class to being wealthy, cause the rich already have their money. You're just locking people into a class system.
Please, explain how that works.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Simple, the rich already have their money, a middle class person would have to have a sudden rise in income to become wealthy, same with someone in poverty, however you're proposing these people get taxed big time for the sudden increase in income. Thus you are punishing people for being successful.
Most people who are rich where born into a rich family and didnt earn a dime on their own with out having mommy and daddy give them everything haha their called rich kids for a reason I was in a gang once we beat down a rich kid who raped a girl at my school gave her family shut up money but he got what he deserved from me and my friends justice was served According to Thomas J. Stanley's book, "The Millionaire Next Door: The Surprising Secrets of America's Wealthy," only 20% of millionaires inherited their riches. The other 80% are what you'd call nouveau riche: first-generation millionaires who earned their cash on their own. Many millionaires simply worked, saved, and lived within their means to generate their wealth -- think accountants and managers: regular people going to work every day. Most millionaires didn't get their riches overnight when a rich relative died -- they worked for the money.
http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budget ... -budgeting
Thats how it used to be but the fact is it isnt that way any more
The reason why it isn't is government, between picking winners and losers and all the new red tape, it's a wonder we don't have 50% unemployment.
Right now people are missing the point that hiking taxes is only going to make things worse and the low tax rates for the rich is not the issue. It's all the stupid regulations that are the issue.
Here I will give you a grown up response but I fear I am throwing it away cuz you never respond only squawk.
The Idea that increasing taxes make revenues go down is called the Laffer curve.
The Idea is when the tax rate is 0% or 100% tax revenue is 0.
because it is 0 and both end and greater than 0 in the middle it must be a curve of some sort.
Laffer thought we were on the descending side of it so any decrease in tax rate would make an increase in revenue.
This is what I say the curve is based on expected returns i.e. how much more money will you make next year if I let you keep your money this year follow?
So the Laffer curve is based on expected returns or growth rate of the economy.
turns out if you expected profit is very high like 100% or more the optimal tax rate ends up being about 11%
this fits so well with visagrunts idea about corporate tax rates because companies can sometime turn profits like that.
People on the other hand salary-slaves like you and me can are lucky if we can make 5% on the market
and sadly when your expected profit is that low the optimal tax rate approaches 100%
meaning that investment income is not that important to protect.
about the regulation kinda a vague argument there kiddo which regulation?
lets get to brass tacks not magic bogeyman
regulation bad.
Obama bad.
hulk smash.
is not really an argument now is it?
He doesnt like to have a good debate neither does raptor
02 Oct 2011, 11:58 am
02 Oct 2011, 12:02 pm
02 Oct 2011, 12:09 pm
02 Oct 2011, 1:25 pm
JakobVirgil wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Joker wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Joker wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Joker wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Joker wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Joker wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Joker wrote:
No one decides whats best for me or whats best for my health that's my decision to make not the government.
Well if the individual mandate is Constitutional, Government can do precisely that.
Then I will gladly rebel against the Government the Constitution is very overrated in my views its the security blanket of America.
I support our military I do not support the Government.
Actually, I think the US Supreme Court (barring Obama being able to stack the Supreme Court with his cronies due to "sudden departures" of Justices) is going to find the Individual Mandate and possibly all of Obamacare unconstitutional.
The Constitution is an amazing document, it puts into writing limits on the powers of Government, and is a safeguard for our rights.
But it doesn't secure our rights not for the lower or middle class America that gets treated second rate compared to the higher class and wealthy.
WHO PAY MORE TAXES THEN THE RICH.
Well what you are proposing would lock people into the middle class or poverty, because you would hit anyone that made a lot of money suddenly so they couldn't go from middle class to wealthy.
Look at Herman Cain for instance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Cain
If you lived in the Ghetto all your life you would want the same thing
But increasing taxes actually hurts those that are going up out of poverty or going from middle class to being wealthy, cause the rich already have their money. You're just locking people into a class system.
Please, explain how that works.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Simple, the rich already have their money, a middle class person would have to have a sudden rise in income to become wealthy, same with someone in poverty, however you're proposing these people get taxed big time for the sudden increase in income. Thus you are punishing people for being successful.
Most people who are rich where born into a rich family and didnt earn a dime on their own with out having mommy and daddy give them everything haha their called rich kids for a reason I was in a gang once we beat down a rich kid who raped a girl at my school gave her family shut up money but he got what he deserved from me and my friends justice was served According to Thomas J. Stanley's book, "The Millionaire Next Door: The Surprising Secrets of America's Wealthy," only 20% of millionaires inherited their riches. The other 80% are what you'd call nouveau riche: first-generation millionaires who earned their cash on their own. Many millionaires simply worked, saved, and lived within their means to generate their wealth -- think accountants and managers: regular people going to work every day. Most millionaires didn't get their riches overnight when a rich relative died -- they worked for the money.
http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budget ... -budgeting
Thats how it used to be but the fact is it isnt that way any more
The reason why it isn't is government, between picking winners and losers and all the new red tape, it's a wonder we don't have 50% unemployment.
Right now people are missing the point that hiking taxes is only going to make things worse and the low tax rates for the rich is not the issue. It's all the stupid regulations that are the issue.
Here I will give you a grown up response but I fear I am throwing it away cuz you never respond only squawk.
The Idea that increasing taxes make revenues go down is called the Laffer curve.
The Idea is when the tax rate is 0% or 100% tax revenue is 0.
because it is 0 and both end and greater than 0 in the middle it must be a curve of some sort.
Laffer thought we were on the descending side of it so any decrease in tax rate would make an increase in revenue.
This is what I say the curve is based on expected returns i.e. how much more money will you make next year if I let you keep your money this year follow?
So the Laffer curve is based on expected returns or growth rate of the economy.
turns out if you expected profit is very high like 100% or more the optimal tax rate ends up being about 11%
this fits so well with visagrunts idea about corporate tax rates because companies can sometime turn profits like that.
People on the other hand salary-slaves like you and me can are lucky if we can make 5% on the market
and sadly when your expected profit is that low the optimal tax rate approaches 100%
meaning that investment income is not that important to protect.
about the regulation kinda a vague argument there kiddo which regulation?
lets get to brass tacks not magic bogeyman
regulation bad.
Obama bad.
hulk smash.
is not really an argument now is it?
That explains why government revenues went up when Bush LOWERED taxes.
The problem we are having is that all these people are out of work and thus aren't paying taxes, you are proposing we raise taxes on the small business owners and somehow that will encourage them to hire more people, when that will actually cause the opposite.
02 Oct 2011, 1:34 pm
02 Oct 2011, 1:37 pm
02 Oct 2011, 2:01 pm
02 Oct 2011, 2:04 pm
02 Oct 2011, 2:30 pm
02 Oct 2011, 2:40 pm
Inuyasha wrote:
That explains why government revenues went up when Bush LOWERED taxes.
No they didn't.
02 Oct 2011, 2:48 pm
Inuyasha wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
Here I will give you a grown up response but I fear I am throwing it away cuz you never respond only squawk.
The Idea that increasing taxes make revenues go down is called the Laffer curve.
The Idea is when the tax rate is 0% or 100% tax revenue is 0.
because it is 0 and both end and greater than 0 in the middle it must be a curve of some sort.
Laffer thought we were on the descending side of it so any decrease in tax rate would make an increase in revenue.
This is what I say the curve is based on expected returns i.e. how much more money will you make next year if I let you keep your money this year follow?
So the Laffer curve is based on expected returns or growth rate of the economy.
turns out if you expected profit is very high like 100% or more the optimal tax rate ends up being about 11%
this fits so well with visagrunts idea about corporate tax rates because companies can sometime turn profits like that.
People on the other hand salary-slaves like you and me can are lucky if we can make 5% on the market
and sadly when your expected profit is that low the optimal tax rate approaches 100%
meaning that investment income is not that important to protect.
about the regulation kinda a vague argument there kiddo which regulation?
lets get to brass tacks not magic bogeyman
regulation bad.
Obama bad.
hulk smash.
is not really an argument now is it?
That explains why government revenues went up when Bush LOWERED taxes.
The problem we are having is that all these people are out of work and thus aren't paying taxes, you are proposing we raise taxes on the small business owners and somehow that will encourage them to hire more people, when that will actually cause the opposite.
I knew I was throwing pearls before swine.
I bolded the part that had nothing to do with what I said.
as to the other stupid things you said I will answer with a chart.
I know you are not honest enough to respond to it but everyone else will get a chuckle.
02 Oct 2011, 2:54 pm
pandabear wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
That explains why government revenues went up when Bush LOWERED taxes.
No they didn't.Lowering tax rates worked briefly for JFK and Ronald Reagan. Then RWR and his buddies proceeded to engage on one of the largest deficit spending binges in U.S. history. This unfortunate trend was slowed briefly during the Clinton Administration and picked up again subsequently In the Dubya Bush administration and the Obama administration. The lowering of the tax rate trick no longer works. We are too deep in a deficit hole to dug out by a lower tax rate stimulus. We are going to have to raise taxes to pay back the money that was borrowed. It is either that or repudiate the debt which will bring the economy and the government crashing down upon us.
ruveyn
02 Oct 2011, 3:26 pm
JakobVirgil wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
Here I will give you a grown up response but I fear I am throwing it away cuz you never respond only squawk.
The Idea that increasing taxes make revenues go down is called the Laffer curve.
The Idea is when the tax rate is 0% or 100% tax revenue is 0.
because it is 0 and both end and greater than 0 in the middle it must be a curve of some sort.
Laffer thought we were on the descending side of it so any decrease in tax rate would make an increase in revenue.
This is what I say the curve is based on expected returns i.e. how much more money will you make next year if I let you keep your money this year follow?
So the Laffer curve is based on expected returns or growth rate of the economy.
turns out if you expected profit is very high like 100% or more the optimal tax rate ends up being about 11%
this fits so well with visagrunts idea about corporate tax rates because companies can sometime turn profits like that.
People on the other hand salary-slaves like you and me can are lucky if we can make 5% on the market
and sadly when your expected profit is that low the optimal tax rate approaches 100%
meaning that investment income is not that important to protect.
about the regulation kinda a vague argument there kiddo which regulation?
lets get to brass tacks not magic bogeyman
regulation bad.
Obama bad.
hulk smash.
is not really an argument now is it?
That explains why government revenues went up when Bush LOWERED taxes.
The problem we are having is that all these people are out of work and thus aren't paying taxes, you are proposing we raise taxes on the small business owners and somehow that will encourage them to hire more people, when that will actually cause the opposite.
I knew I was throwing pearls before swine.
I bolded the part that had nothing to do with what I said.
as to the other stupid things you said I will answer with a chart.
I know you are not honest enough to respond to it but everyone else will get a chuckle.
You forgot the effects that ENRON and 9/11 had on the market.
02 Oct 2011, 3:34 pm
Inuyasha wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
Here I will give you a grown up response but I fear I am throwing it away cuz you never respond only squawk.
The Idea that increasing taxes make revenues go down is called the Laffer curve.
The Idea is when the tax rate is 0% or 100% tax revenue is 0.
because it is 0 and both end and greater than 0 in the middle it must be a curve of some sort.
Laffer thought we were on the descending side of it so any decrease in tax rate would make an increase in revenue.
This is what I say the curve is based on expected returns i.e. how much more money will you make next year if I let you keep your money this year follow?
So the Laffer curve is based on expected returns or growth rate of the economy.
turns out if you expected profit is very high like 100% or more the optimal tax rate ends up being about 11%
this fits so well with visagrunts idea about corporate tax rates because companies can sometime turn profits like that.
People on the other hand salary-slaves like you and me can are lucky if we can make 5% on the market
and sadly when your expected profit is that low the optimal tax rate approaches 100%
meaning that investment income is not that important to protect.
about the regulation kinda a vague argument there kiddo which regulation?
lets get to brass tacks not magic bogeyman
regulation bad.
Obama bad.
hulk smash.
is not really an argument now is it?
That explains why government revenues went up when Bush LOWERED taxes.
The problem we are having is that all these people are out of work and thus aren't paying taxes, you are proposing we raise taxes on the small business owners and somehow that will encourage them to hire more people, when that will actually cause the opposite.
I knew I was throwing pearls before swine.
I bolded the part that had nothing to do with what I said.
as to the other stupid things you said I will answer with a chart.
I know you are not honest enough to respond to it but everyone else will get a chuckle.
You forgot the effects that ENRON and 9/11 had on the market.
Are you now seeking to contradict your previous statement?
The Charming Inuyasha wrote:
That explains why government revenues went up when Bush LOWERED taxes.
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| I hate getting these |
13 Mar 2024, 8:11 am |
| Does anyone else hate being outdoors? |
30 Mar 2024, 11:36 am |
| Why do people hate lima beans? |
10 Apr 2024, 7:38 pm |
| Nazi sentenced to 18 years for transphobic hate crime |
03 Feb 2024, 7:41 pm |
