| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/22/2004 09:27:35 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by louddog:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Originally posted by achiral:
take a class in macro economics, you will be amazed at how you have tried to simplify such a big problem into one sentence, and how your question is unanswerable because of the simplification |
Why don't you explain the macro economic principles so that we can understand it better. The point that MadMordegon is making is that we are increasing our national debt even more with this tax giveaway to the rich. We already have some astronomical debt of around 11 trillion dollars (?). Now, I know enough about economics that as an individual I can't keep borrowing from the future, or my children's future and expect that at some time I will pull out of it, since the hole keeps getting bigger and bigger. (Who is paying for the war in Iraq anyway, and where are we getting the money from?) So can you explain from the macro economic point of view why this huge debt is such a good thing? |
Simple example: Lockeed Martin makes defense equipment. A tax cut for them means they can invest more money on research and development. Thus hiring several hundred well paid engineers that pay taxes and buy new cars and kitchen tables, which creates jobs for the auto makers and the table makers, who pay taxes and go out and buy toys for their kids, which creates jobs for the toy makers who... |
So how is that going to pay for the huge national debt that we will be handing down to our children and their children to pay off, unless we start taxing? Someone's got to pay for the war in Iraq, besides our soldiers that are paying with their blood and health.
Message edited by author 2004-10-22 21:30:37. |
|
|
|
10/22/2004 09:42:27 PM · #27 |
| Btw...I"m not sure I agree with the posters that have said that corporations pay for everything in this country. I don't think that's true at all. For example, R&D in the pharmaceutical industry is paid with our tax dollars through the National Institutes of Health. The money that is spent by the pharm companies is mostly for marketing purposes. |
|
|
|
10/22/2004 09:43:49 PM · #28 |
| Can someone give some examples of the kinds of things that corporations are paying for (that are not tax deductible) that should be paid for with tax dollars? |
|
|
|
10/22/2004 09:48:00 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by louddog:
Simple example: Lockeed Martin makes defense equipment. A tax cut for them means they can invest more money on research and development. Thus hiring several hundred well paid engineers that pay taxes and buy new cars and kitchen tables, which creates jobs for the auto makers and the table makers, who pay taxes and go out and buy toys for their kids, which creates jobs for th toy makers who... |
That is how Bush explains tax cuts. That is the ideal way to use a tax cut. But again, you donât factor in human nature. The rich want to get richer, and they will do what it takes to complete that task. Multi millionaires hardly know about the little people, much less care to help them. |
|
|
|
10/22/2004 10:09:28 PM · #30 |
I know a poor man (personally). I know there are many, too many, poorer than him. Yet, it is him I know very well.
He works, fairly consistently, about 14 hrs a day, weekends included. He rents a small house and has trouble meeting his obligations (paying the rent, utility bills etc.). He is an intelligent man with a good education, mild mannered, honest and trustworthy. He wears used clothes and eats what he can afford while, somehow, still being able to appear clean, healthy and well-groomed.
Despite the many adversities he is facing, his disposition is friendly. He, no doubt, contributes to the well-being of the few people he knows and who are fortunate to know him.
I also know a rich man (personally). I know there are all kinds of people who have managed to accumulate wealth, and that these are not always alike. Yet, this is the rich man I happen to know.
He does not work, although he maintains an elaborate 'office' and several 'staff' and 'help'. He is poorly educated, arrogant to the point of offense and abusive. He has also been convicted of 'fraud'. He wears designer clothes, lives lavishly in one of his houses (while others remain vacant during his consistent absence). While he owns several luxury cars, he can only drive one at a time.
The only contribution (I can think of) he possibly makes to society comes in the form of those taxes he cannot avoid to pay.
When I look at these two men, knowing what I know of them, whom do you think I favour when it comes to taxes?
|
|
|
|
10/22/2004 10:20:18 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Is it ok for the US, who has the most debt of any country in the world and is in the middle of 2 wars, to give 140 BILLION away to millionaire and billionaire corporations? |
You talk about it like it's the governments money to begin with. You can't GIVE me my money. the government TAKES my money. A tax cut allows me to KEEP more of it. The sooner liberals and every other high spending politician figures out it's my [deleted] money NOT theirs, the better off we will be.
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Because its the RIGHT thing to do. The problems with everyone is they are motivated purely by profit and money; this is why our grandchildren will live in a poisoned world. |
Are you honestly suggesting that taking more of MY money will stop this?
Our grandchildren will grow up in a poisoned world because the lower class as a majority (mostly in cities) has stopped thinking of the future. When my grandparents came to this country they sacrificed THEIR lives so my parents could have a better one, and my parents sacrificed MUCH so I could have a better life. I lived in poverty until I was about 14 years old, but you know what, my parents finally succeeded and so did I. If my parents cared more about 22" rims and bling bling, I'm guessing I'd be a [deleted] looser just like them...
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
The minimum wage in America is hardly livable, it needs to go up. |
This is a great talking point to get reelected, but is [deleted] stupid and short sided. As soon as you bump up minimum wage, everything else bumps up to reflect the added cost and extra money in the system. You know who get [deleted]? The middle and lower middle class. That guy making 12 bucks an hour, is now making the equivalent of 9, and you know what, he's not getting a raise!!!
But I guess pandering to voters and have good intentions is more important than actually succeeding
Message edited by mk - language. |
|
|
|
10/22/2004 10:32:05 PM · #32 |
| Russell, do you think you can post without the profanity? I would appreciate it. |
|
|
|
10/22/2004 10:34:34 PM · #33 |
Zeuszen, the poor man is the one that lives closer to life, and so I would think you would favour him more than the other, regardless of taxes.
Originally posted by zeuszen:
I know a poor man (personally). I know there are many, too many, poorer than him. Yet, it is him I know very well.
He works, fairly consistently, about 14 hrs a day, weekends included. He rents a small house and has trouble meeting his obligations (paying the rent, utility bills etc.). He is an intelligent man with a good education, mild mannered, honest and trustworthy. He wears used clothes and eats what he can afford while, somehow, still being able to appear clean, healthy and well-groomed.
Despite the many adversities he is facing, his disposition is friendly. He, no doubt, contributes to the well-being of the few people he knows and who are fortunate to know him.
I also know a rich man (personally). I know there are all kinds of people who have managed to accumulate wealth, and that these are not always alike. Yet, this is the rich man I happen to know.
He does not work, although he maintains an elaborate 'office' and several 'staff' and 'help'. He is poorly educated, arrogant to the point of offense and abusive. He has also been convicted of 'fraud'. He wears designer clothes, lives lavishly in one of his houses (while others remain vacant during his consistent absence). While he owns several luxury cars, he can only drive one at a time.
The only contribution (I can think of) he possibly makes to society comes in the form of those taxes he cannot avoid to pay.
When I look at these two men, knowing what I know of them, whom do you think I favour when it comes to taxes? |
|
|
|
|
10/22/2004 10:43:23 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by StevePax:
Don't tax more, spend less. Lots less. Stop passing useless laws, stop doing frivolous things, and there would suddenly be money for the important things. Spend less. Don't give money away. |
I agree with that, Steve...spend less is a good outlook, but tell that to George Bush and the rest of neocons currently inhabiting the white house. The war in Iraq alone is costing us about $200 billion dollars so far...that's not including what it will cost next year, or the year after, or the year after that. Many people are saying to really secure Iraq it will be a 5 to 10 year war. This does not include the Afghanistan war, or the wars we will start with other countries, such as Iran. It will also not pay for the destruction of the environement, or the rebuilding the infrastructure of these countries. |
|
|
|
10/22/2004 11:02:12 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by Russell2566:
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Because its the RIGHT thing to do. The problems with everyone is they are motivated purely by profit and money; this is why our grandchildren will live in a poisoned world. |
Our grandchildren will grow up in a poisoned world because the lower class as a majority (mostly in cities) has stopped thinking of the future. |
Iâve been avoiding saying it because I like to attempt keep this discourse civilized, but that was one of the most ignorant, stupid and misguided statements ive ever heard.
Russell you are in desperate need of a change of surroundings and influence. |
|
|
|
10/22/2004 11:09:29 PM · #36 |
| so whats everyone know about "Flat Tax"?? From what I know, its the way to go. |
|
|
|
10/22/2004 11:18:33 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Iâve been avoiding saying it because I like to attempt keep this discourse civilized, but that was one of the most ignorant, stupid and misguided statements ive ever heard.
Russell you are in desperate need of a change of surroundings and influence. |
Oh really? Maybe YOUR the one in need. My view is just overly realistic and none-PC. Unfortunetly, I'm painfully correct. |
|
|
|
10/22/2004 11:20:06 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by dsmboostaholic:
so whats everyone know about "Flat Tax"?? From what I know, its the way to go. |
IT'S THE ONLY FAIR TAX THAT'S FOR SURE.. EVERYONE PAYS THE SAME PERCENTAGE...
|
|
|
|
10/22/2004 11:25:24 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by Anachronite:
Originally posted by dsmboostaholic:
so whats everyone know about "Flat Tax"?? From what I know, its the way to go. |
IT'S THE ONLY FAIR TAX THAT'S FOR SURE.. EVERYONE PAYS THE SAME PERCENTAGE... |
It's worked very well in other countries so far. I've heard a few people throw around the VAT tax idea, that scares me. Someone even mentioned that Bush was thinling of it. The VAT tax is a bad idea. It punishes many people and encourages people to buy less... |
|
|
|
10/22/2004 11:41:40 PM · #40 |
| okay...it's time for everyone to leave this thread and go back to star wars or photography |
|
|
|
10/23/2004 12:23:20 AM · #41 |
| I"m still waiting for an answer as to how the governemnt is going to pay for the war in Iraq and afghanistan, or my lesson in macro economics. :) |
|
|
|
10/23/2004 12:26:03 AM · #42 |
| You probably haven't got any answers anyway. |
|
|
|
10/23/2004 01:17:34 AM · #43 |
| Just wondering ... any Ayn Rand readers in the thread? |
|
|
|
10/23/2004 06:52:03 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
You probably haven't got any answers anyway. |
ooo internet 4th grade fight, SWEET let's take it outside! seriously some of us have lives outside of making up lies about people on a photography site.
as for the macroeconomics, you don't even want to know, if you did you would have looked it up already, i'm not your teacher |
|
|
|
10/23/2004 09:05:00 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by achiral:
okay...it's time for everyone to leave this thread and go back to star wars or photography |
Please, for the love of everything that doesn't suck...choose photography over Star Wars! ;o) |
|
|
|
10/23/2004 12:02:12 PM · #46 |
I took two semesters of Macro economics while earning my minor in economics. I tried to give you a summary but you didn't understand. Sorry, but I do not have time to teach it to you only to have you tell me how wrong I am. Do your own homework. Taxing successful corporations is not a good idea.
I asked before in another thread and no one answered, do you even know what the national debt is? It's not that big of a deal. Paying it off should not be a very big concern.
Now, yes there are evil corporations out there that suck the life out of the country. those corporations should be identified and people should stop buying their products/services, then they will go out of business and the world would be a better place. If you want to help make that happen, rather then lump all corporations as evil, name a few and state why they are evil. Nike was a good start. I'll never buy a pair of Nikes again after I seen some of their factories. If your message gets out you can make a difference. However, the vast majority of corporations are not evil, they provide a lot of people with jobs and they do a lot of good for the communities they are in. And, contrary to what you believe, they pump a lot of $$$ into the tax system. Saying all big business is evil is really unfair to a lot of great corporations that make this a great country.
Finally, Money does not make people evil. There are evil poor people that will rob your grandma to buy crack and there are evil rich people that will screw you to make their bank account grow (or filthy rich people like Kerry that creatively claim their income so they actually pay a lower tax rate then most Americans). Money does not equal evil. Evil people are what they are, some have money, some don't.
|
|
|
|
10/23/2004 12:52:05 PM · #47 |
There is a great old joke, two economists are looking at some formula on a black board and one says to the other, âyou know I find this model works much better if you leave the people outâ. Economist, especially right wing economists, like to say there is a model of rational self interested behavior which defines human life, human desire. But of course what they canât countenance in that model, is departures, from what they call rational self interest. Which happen all the time. We have to complicate the model there may be other directed actions rather than self directed actions, self sacrifice, minimization of profit for the sake of some other value and so on and so on. And this of course is not news to any human, but it is news to a lot of economists because it is not the way they have conceived the world. You know; we should take some time to notice this discrepancy because itâs the key to rebuilding the picture; such that itâs richer and more human and not so much about profit.
Mark Kingwell âPhilosopher
|
|
|
|
10/23/2004 02:14:07 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by achiral:
as for the macroeconomics, you don't even want to know, if you did you would have looked it up already, i'm not your teacher |
But I did look it up and do want to know, but while I got a broad answer to what macroeconomics is, it also said there are alot of different theories and research into macroeconmics. So which theory of macroeconomics are you espousing to support your claim that this kind of reckless spending by our government that is leading to a massive debt is good for our economy? |
|
|
|
10/23/2004 02:50:46 PM · #49 |
Damn. Based on the misleading title, I thought this thread was about personal taxes, and I enjoy listening/reading as other people rationalize personal taxes - most entertaining.
Oh well, now that I'm here, some quick questions: Which candidate has vowed to cut taxes for MORE THAN 99% of all tax paying companies in the US? Which candidate has vowed to cut the corporate tax rate by at least 5%?
If you said John Kerry has promised such massive corporate tax cuts, good for you! You're informed! [Well, you're mildly informed at least. This has been central to Kerry's campaign, not a buried side issue].
Kerry says his cuts are to create incentives to create jobs in America and blah blah blah. Bush says his cuts will stimulate the economy, create jobs in America and blah blah blah. To me, the promise of tax cuts from any political candidate is blatant vote pandering dressed up by flowery stated purposes/benefits. Perhaps I'm cynical.
Bush cut taxes for everyone - was it the right thing to do? Don't know. Made him quite popular at the time though.
Kerry has promised tax cuts for everybody but rich individuals. Brilliant tax strategy or vote pandering? If most rich individuals are Republicans, as is widely believed, then he wasn't getting their vote anyway. So his "bold" tax promises stand to gain him piles o' votes with comparatively little down side. And that down side is diluted since by my wild-ass guess many rich individuals will likely benefit from his massive corporate tax cuts and thereby not feel as much sting from the dreaded increase in personal income tax.
Sorry to pee on your lil' Bush bash here. But political issues are NEVER as one-sided as some people might like. |
|
|
|
10/23/2004 02:56:25 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by louddog:
... do you even know what the national debt is? It's not that big of a deal. Paying it off should not be a very big concern ... |
Check the National Debt Clock and divide by US population to see if it's a big deal to pay off or not. Do you have the $25,000+ to pay off your personal share? |
|
