Obama Gets 30% of Americans Certain to Support Re-Election in Economy Poll

[miles]

Socioeconomic equality, as something at least generally worth striving towards, is a liberal (in the American sense of the word) as distinct from a libertarian or conservative concept. (It it also a socialist concept, but to much greater degree.)

The only way to ensure socioeconomic equality is by taking from one person and giving to another, which is theft. You want fairness, not equality.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[islandman]

Ooops - thought I deleted the Constitution question. My bad.

Do you favor lowering the corporate tax rate?
" " capital gains tax?
Do you favor the Fair Tax?

Google's effective overseas tax rate was 2.4% in its most recent fiscal year using a combination of transfer pricing and tax strategies specific to Ireland and the Netherlands.

To what level would you like it lowered in the U.S.? Google's overall effective tax rate was ~22%.


Go.

Exactly what I said. The first and second taxation of those profits, is the engine of government re-distribution. That after tax profits do indeed represent accumulated wealth, there is no real difference as profits are still profits whether they are taxed or not. I think in this case we are talking past each other.

No, we're not. You're on autopilot.

Good luck with that.

Also, "that and after tax profits do indeed represent accumulated wealth...".....no, it doesn't. 'That' isn't included, just after-tax profits to arrive at accumulated wealth. You clearly don't understand how an income statement flows into a balance sheet.

Finally, there has never been a moment in your life that you lived in a free market, nothing you've bought, nothing you've sold. If we can't agree, let's at least have respect for the truth and move forward from there.

 

[Luk]

Try this. Not exactly scientific, but you'll get the idea.

Miles is a fountain of information...

Session not found
Unable to continue: you are not logged into the system, please close the current window and then retry to login.
Additionally, please check that cookies are enabled in the current browser

 

[miles]

Tax the fuck out of billionaires and corporations. End all subsidies to oil companies and farmers.

If you confiscated all the income from every millionaire in the country it wouldn't amount to a drop in the bucket. Taxing the fuck out of corporations makes them tax collectors. Citizens indirectly pay those taxes by bearing the brunt of rising prices which are the result of increased overhead. Corporations are responsible to their stockholders for turning a profit. If they don't increase prices, profits are driven down.

I'll go for ending the oil subsidies when the government ends its over regulation of the industry.

 

[islandman]

I'll go for ending the oil subsidies when the government ends its over regulation of the industry.

Even miles knows we don't have and never have lived in a free market.

I believe the last time someone tried it was called the Whiskey Rebellion.

 

[KingOrfeo]

The only way to ensure socioeconomic equality is by taking from one person and giving to another, which is theft.

No, it isn't. It could be, of course, if you're an individual playing Robin Hood. Taxation, OTOH, is not theft; and whether the government's use of your taxes is "redistributive" or not is your business only as a voter, not as a taxpayer.

But, that's another debate. I was just trying to pin down terminology.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[islandman]

Yet liberals try and point out all of the problems created by an unfettered laissez-faire economic system that has never existed in reality. So here, I have to agree.

I don't know why you need to play the liberal card, but it was just you and me posting.

As for the rest of the sentence...unfettered and laissez-faire is pretty redundant, it's not an economic system, my head hurts too much to figure out the rest.

You win.

 

[islandman]

So why do liberals insist today's economic problems stem from an unregulated laissez-faire economy that's never existed?

By definition, a laissez-faire economy is intrinsically unregulated. This leads me to conclude that you don't actually know what you're trying to say.

And that makes two of us.

 

[miles]

No, it isn't. It could be, of course, if you're an individual playing Robin Hood. Taxation, OTOH, is not theft; and whether the government's use of your taxes is "redistributive" or not is your business only as a voter, not as a taxpayer.

But, that's another debate. I was just trying to pin down terminology.

Taking money from me at the point of a gun isn't theft? It is my business!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[miles]

Taxing the Rich
By John Stossel

Progressives want to raise taxes on individuals who make more than $200,000 a year because they say it's wrong for the rich to be "given" more money. Sunday's New York Times carries a cartoon showing Uncle Sam handing money to a fat cat. They just don't get it.

As I've said before, a tax cut is not a handout. It simply means government steals less. What progressives want to do is take money from some -- by force -- and spend it on others. It sounds less noble when plainly stated.


That's the moral side of the matter. There's a practical side, too. Taxes discourage wealth creation. That hurts everyone, the lower end of the income scale most of all. An economy that, through freedom, encourages the production of wealth raises the living standards of lower-income people as well as everyone else.

A free society is not a zero-sum game in which every gain is offset by someone's loss. As long as government keeps its thumb off the scales, the "makers" who get rich do so by making others better off. (When the government allocates capital or creates barriers to competition, all bets are off.)

Of course, this is not the prevailing view among the intelligentsia. Columbia University Professor Marc Lamont Hill tells me, "Those who have more should pay more."

But is there a point where they stop producing wealth or leave altogether?

"The rich have always cried wolf like that," Hill says.

But the wolf is here. Maryland created a special tax on rich people that was supposed to bring in $106 million. Instead, the state lost $257 million.

Former Gov. Robert Ehrlich, who is running again for his old job, says: "It reminds me of Charlie Brown. Charlie Brown was always surprised when Lucy pulled the football away. And they're always surprised in Washington and state capitals when the dollars never come in."

Some of Maryland's rich left the state. "They're out of here. These people aren't stupid," Ehrlich says.

New York billionaire Tom Golisano isn't stupid, either. With $3,000 and one employee, he started a business that processes paychecks for companies. He created 13,000 jobs.

Then New York state hiked the income tax on millionaires.

"It was the straw that broke the camel's back," he says. "Not that I like to throw the number around, but my personal income tax last year would've been $13,800 a day. Would you like to write a check for $13,800 a day to a state government, as opposed to moving to another state where there's no state income tax or very low state income tax?

He established residence in Florida, which has no personal income tax.

Now Gov. David Paterson may have even seen the light.

"We projected that we would get $4 billion, and we actually got well short of it," he says.

Art Laffer, the economist who has a curve illustrating this point named after him, isn't surprised.

"It's just economics," he says. "People don't work to pay taxes. People work to get what they can after tax. They'll change where they earn their income. They'll change how they earn their income. They'll change how much they earn, when they receive the income. They'll change all of those things to minimize taxes."

We can see it in the statistics. In 1960, federal revenues were 18.6 percent of total output. Over the next 50 years, that percentage has rarely exceeded 20 percent or fallen below 17 percent. As Laffer says, people adjust their activities to the tax burden.

Donald Trump, who knows something about making money, says of course the rich will leave when hit with higher taxes. "I know these people," he told me. "They're international people. Whether they live here or live in a place like Switzerland doesn't really matter to them."

You haven't left, I told him.

"I haven't left yet. ... Look, the rich people are going to leave. And other people are going to leave. You're going to end up with lots of people that don't produce. And then that's the spiral. That's the end."

And that's another good reason for us to get on with reducing the size of government.

 

[islandman]

So why do liberals insist today's economic problems stem from an unregulated laissez-faire economy that's never existed?

Better answer: Like you, they too have no idea what they're talking about and are arguing just to argue because that's what liberals do?


\/

 

[Sonny Limatina]

You guys are boring the fuck out of me.

Liberals want the government to serve a social function. To do this, taxes need to be much higher than they are now.

Conservatives want the government only to keep the markets and the borders secure enough for social functions to be transferred to the private sector. That means allowing the wealthy to get wealthy enough to provide opportunities for the rest of the population, and allowing others the greatest chance to enter the marketplace and become wealthy. To do this, taxes need to be much lower than they are now.

Our government is neither strictly liberal nor strictly conservative, it's some clumsy combination of both. Our tax rates reflect that. Its current dysfunctional state also reflects that.

We're never going to be strictly conservative or strictly liberal--ever. Please tell me you're not going to keep having this conversation that long.

 

[islandman]

Please tell me you're not going to keep having this conversation that long.

Is this the only thread you're able to view?

 

[Sonny Limatina]

Is this the only thread you're able to view?

too good; didn't read

 

[unregistered]

 

[Joeybagadonuts]

If you confiscated all the income from every millionaire in the country it wouldn't amount to a drop in the bucket. Taxing the fuck out of corporations makes them tax collectors. Citizens indirectly pay those taxes by bearing the brunt of rising prices which are the result of increased overhead. Corporations are responsible to their stockholders for turning a profit. If they don't increase prices, profits are driven down.

I'll go for ending the oil subsidies when the government ends its over regulation of the industry.

I’m a capitalist but I don’t believe in tax loopholes or trickle on me economics. I was opposed to deficit spending back when Reagan was a big spender. Capitalism without regulation creates Wall St. meltdown. Greedy fucks can’t be trusted to regulate themselves.

I don’t consider the founding fathers to be deities. They were a bunch of rich white men who tilted the game in their favor. Democracy is an illusion as long as there are special interests. Fuck the lobbyists.

 

[miles]

I’m a capitalist but I don’t believe in tax loopholes or trickle on me economics. I was opposed to deficit spending back when Reagan was a big spender. Capitalism without regulation creates Wall St. meltdown. Greedy fucks can’t be trusted to regulate themselves.
.

Capitalism - an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

You favor liberal economic policies. You're neither a capitalist or a "fiscal conservative"

I didn't ask you about loopholes, trickle economics, or Reagan. You asked me for questions, which I posted. Instead of answering you chose to deflect and change the subject. You either don't know the difference between conservatives and liberals or don't want to tell the truth.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Joeybagadonuts]

Capitalism - an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

You favor liberal economic policies. You're neither a capitalist or a "fiscal conservative"

I didn't ask you about loopholes, trickle economics, or Reagan. You asked me for questions, which I posted. Instead of answering you chose to deflect and change the subject. You either don't know the difference between conservatives and liberals or don't want to tell the truth.

I don't care what you asked me. I told you what I wanted to tell you. I told you what I believe.

The conversation began with my statement that I was liberal on social issues and offered you an opportunity ask me questions so that you could gage for yourself if I was socially liberal by your standards.

 

[miles]

I don't care what you asked me. I told you what I wanted to tell you. I told you what I believe.

The conversation began with my statement that I was liberal on social issues and offered you an opportunity ask me questions so that you could gage for yourself if I was socially liberal by your standards.

Sure, Joey. Whatever you say. Or didn't say. Or thought you said.

 

[Joeybagadonuts]

Sure, Joey. Whatever you say. Or didn't say. Or thought you said.

Miles, you're a funny guy.