« prev   random   next »

Comments 1 - 40 of 87    Next »    Last »

1   Vicente   ignore (0)   2014 Oct 9, 7:24am     ↓ dislike (3)   quote   flag        

You assume we will find our way out.

2   lostand confused   ignore (0)   2014 Oct 9, 7:33am     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

We did fine without an income tax for a long time. Sad that Russia has a lower tax rate than us. Communism does not work.

Maybe reduce gubmnt, prison industrial complex, reduce welfare-people and defense industry etc and try freedom out a little bit?

3   CornPoptheOriginalGangster   ignore (5)   2014 Oct 9, 7:47am     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

That's why it's crucial for elites to control education and destroy the liberal arts and especially the Social Sciences above all.

It's why the Waltons support an autistic, bare bones curriculum that teaches nothing but rudimentary math and literacy - but no hands on science and no literature and sure as shit no realistic history.

"Just smart enough to ring the register and work the machines" - to paraphrase Carlin the Great,

4   APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch   ignore (43)   2014 Oct 9, 8:14am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Only people without wealth are doomed.

People who matter will be laughing hysterically firing into the mobs of starving cannibal neonates from private helicopters while enjoying oral sex from consort slaves.

Welcome to the states!

5   Peter P   ignore (0)   2014 Oct 9, 9:21am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Heraclitusstudent says

But if you look at food, infrastructures, services, raw materials, etc.. (i.e. most part of the economy) things don't scale that way.

Not yet.

Upside: big money can be made scaling production technology in these areas.

6   Reality   ignore (5)   2014 Oct 9, 10:41am     ↓ dislike (2)   quote   flag        

The fundamental problem with Wealth Tax is the assumption that government bureaucrats operating in the biggest monopoly in the economy can somehow allocate the resources (tax revenue) better than consumer choice choosing among multiple competing owners of capital.

7   tatupu70   ignore (0)   2014 Oct 9, 11:50am     ↓ dislike (2)   quote   flag        

zzyzzx says

A far as I can tell it's the moochers that are sinking the nations economy. The relatively high taxes we pay to support so many deadbeats makes us uncompetitive in the global marketplace

If that's as far as you can tell, then you really need to get out more and do a bit more research.

8   Vicente   ignore (0)   2014 Oct 9, 1:24pm     ↓ dislike (5)   quote   flag        

zzyzzx says

A far as I can tell it's the moochers that are sinking the nations economy.

Right on!

9   marcus   ignore (10)   2014 Oct 9, 1:36pm     ↓ dislike (3)   quote   flag        

lostand confused says

In America, being successful and wealthy was not looked down upon. Now it is , there are legions of people-maybe lazy, but many not-who openly talk about wealth taxes and higher and higher taxes. When a slow majority becomes like that-that is what leads to communism or socialism or whateverism.

I do not look down on being successful or wealthy. In fact I admire both. I guess I admire wealth more if it's earned, but I don't even look down on inherited wealth. But that doesn't mean that I don't have a problem with after tax returns on labor being as low as it is now, compared to returns on capital.

I'm for higher taxes on upper increments of income (not a persons first 250K), and possibly an increase in inheritance taxes and maybe capital gains too.

But I'm not suggesting that any of these (except possibly inheritance taxes on amount over X) need to even go back to where they were in the 1960s.

The 1960s were right after the whole McCarthy comminism scare. Being a communist was practically illegal in this country. I guess it still is.

Are you saying that we were a communist country in the 1960s ?

If not, how can wanting taxes to go up, but not all the way up to where they were in the 1960s, be communism ?

Predicted answer: "Oh people didn't really pay those higher rates back then." And then go on to saying other BS without really ever considering the question.

Sure, people didn't actually pay 90% taxes on the highest part of their income (they had deductions and shelters) back then. But guess what ? They really did pay more taxes than now, and more than anyone is suggesting now.

And yet I don't think you will say we were communists then.

What gives ?

10   marcus   ignore (10)   2014 Oct 9, 1:40pm     ↓ dislike (3)   quote   flag        

marcus says

What gives ?

I'll give you a hint.

It starts with Pro... and ends with ....aganda.

11   lostand confused   ignore (0)   2014 Oct 9, 2:07pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

marcus says

But I'm not suggesting that any of these (except possibly inheritance taxes on amount over X) need to even go back to where they were in the 1960s.

The 1960s were right after the whole McCarthy comminism scare. Being a communist was practically illegal in this country. I guess it still is.

Are you saying that we were a communist country in the 1960s ?

If not, how can wanting taxes to go up, but not all the way up to where they were in the 1960s, be communism ?

That was an aberration in American history.. That ain't the norm. We have the biggest prison industrial, biggest defesne , biggest whatever complexes all funded by tax payers.Generations on welfare and sec 8 and so on and so forth. Cut everything and talk about putting people to work.

I don't mind paying higher taxes if the nation has suffered a calamity-like during world war Ii and the great depression. What I do mind is paying high taxes to support the welfare hordes -why can't they work when illegals are working millions of jobs?? They are the same flesh and blood as us. That one period of high taxes was an aberration, not the norm.

We spend too much in wasteful endeavours . nobody ever talks about how to bring jobs back , how to make us great again. except there seems to be visceral hatred of the rich and an almost entitled right to other people's stuff. probably the result of feminisim , alimony and property split laws.

What are tax increases going to achieve?? Why do you need a wealth tax on top of the income taxes? How much is enough for the money hungry hordes??? That is how communism starts. hopelessness, despair and the rich becomes the enemy-oh lets take his money and the fools who parrot those lines will be the ones crying most when somebody comes and takes away his home and hearth. To a bum, you might be part of the XY% and part of the problem. Why should you have a whole house to yourself and not share it with the downtrodden. It doesn't stop with the 1% or the10% . Once the disease of entitlement starts, it will go down till it is watered.

There si nothing wrong in being a communist-if you never want to grow up and have choices and always be told what to do. That ain't my thing and with Obozo's FATCA and other actions and the general population's mood-we may end up there.

12   marcus   ignore (10)   2014 Oct 9, 2:21pm     ↓ dislike (3)   quote   flag        

lostand confused says

except there seems to be visceral hatred of the rich

This is a lie. It's bullshit. I can tell you because I am one of those people that thinks taxes should be higher, It has NOTHING to do with hating the rich. Sorry, That's simply a lie. Everyone wishes they were rich, and doesn't think they would deserve to be hated if they were.

lostand confused says

We spend too much in wasteful endeavours . nobody ever talks about how to bring jobs back

One of the many things you are missing, is that government spending is largely on jobs. Even true for the military and even true for the prison industrial complex (both of which I agree should be much smaller).

Still, most of that money goes towards jobs. And a high percentage of that goes back in to the economy. Our economy is more dependant on government jobs than most people realize. Retail jobs and service jobs (both low paying) haven't been enough to pick up the slack for lost manufacturing in the US.

Newsflash: All that government spending goes towards peoples incomes which gets spent in the economy. Making that spending more productive (not military and prisons) is something to fight for. But fighting for less government spending doesn't make sense in this day and age. Let's just make it productive and as beneficial as possible. There is plenty of infrastructure to improve and rebuild, and there are plenty of investments that the government can intelligently support (side by side with other investors - wall street and banks etc).

I'm not talking Halliburton. But who knows ? Maybe sometimes.

13   Reality   ignore (5)   2014 Oct 9, 4:04pm     ↓ dislike (2)   quote   flag        

marcus says

The 1960s were right after the whole McCarthy comminism scare. Being a communist was practically illegal in this country. I guess it still is.

Are you saying that we were a communist country in the 1960s ?

Stalin and Mao killed more communists than either America or Hitler. Therefore, are they not communist? McCarthyism is actually quite collectivist, regardless what label that collectivism chose for itself. McCarthyism was in the 1950's, not the 1960's.

In any case, the total government spending as percentage of GDP in 1960 was much lower than it is today. This transformation has been achieved through both taxation and central banking. Both taxation on wealth and central banking are communistic, as explicitly spelled out in the original Communist Manifesto of 1848 written by Karl Marx himself.

14   Reality   ignore (5)   2014 Oct 9, 4:10pm     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

marcus says

One of the many things you are missing, is that government spending is largely on jobs. Even true for the military and even true for the prison industrial complex (both of which I agree should be much smaller).

Still, most of that money goes towards jobs. And a high percentage of that goes back in to the economy.

100% of government spending in any country go towards make-belief "jobs." When you let the government decide 100% of the job market, you have a 100% communist society. Bureaucratic monopoly can not allocate resources, including human resources, as efficiently as competing consumer choice can.

Our economy is more dependant on government jobs than most people realize. Retail jobs and service jobs (both low paying) haven't been enough to pick up the slack for lost manufacturing in the US.

Lost manufacturing jobs are the result of government intervention: it is no co-incidence that when the government specialize the domestic economy towards the war machine, empire building and bread-and-circus, you end up with mass unemployment on the dole domestically in the capital while importing tons of stuff from the imperial provinces. The two are directly linked, just like in Rome nearly 2000 years ago.

15   marcus   ignore (10)   2014 Oct 9, 4:42pm     ↓ dislike (4)   quote   flag        

"100% of government spending in any country go towards make-belief "jobs."

You can't make this shit up !!

Right. All the money spent on Military, military equipment such as making jets, flying military jets, then local police, firemen, paramedics, teachers, social workers, courts, maintenance of old and construction of new infrastucture.

Also huge amounts of government money is contracted out to private companies, for building roads, or schools, or public offices. There's huge military contracts, the space program, and I'm not even montioning so many other very legit jobs having to do with regulations, or government agenciesthat you might take issue with. This is a microscopic fraction of total government spending, if you are including all the state and local.

All of this is jobs, jobs, jobs. MAny of which are the most real jobs there are.

Make believe jobs ? How can anyone be so clueless.

16   tatupu70   ignore (0)   2014 Oct 9, 8:29pm     ↓ dislike (2)   quote   flag        

lostand confused says

Now it is , there are legions of people-maybe lazy, but many not-who openly talk about wealth taxes and higher and higher taxes.

Wanting to raise taxes on the super rich doesn't mean I'm "looking down" on them. It means I understand how the economy works and would like to build a tax structure that produce a healthy one.

17   mmmarvel   ignore (0)   2014 Oct 9, 8:41pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Peter P says

Perhaps most people in the future will be content living in a virtual reality.

Think of the movie Wallie - the wife and I have commented that more and more we see the world changing that way (not the recycle stuff). Less and less human physical interaction and more and more virtual interaction, playing a Xbox game with people across the county. Heck, even discussions like this where we aren't talking, sitting on a porch after a meal, but faceless, nameless discussion on a virtual platform. There are certainly pluses, are we recognizing the minuses?

18   lostand confused   ignore (0)   2014 Oct 9, 9:42pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

marcus says

except there seems to be visceral hatred of the rich

This is a lie. It's bullshit. I can tell you because I am one of those people that thinks taxes should be higher, It has NOTHING to do with hating the rich. Sorry, That's simply a lie. Everyone wishes they were rich, and doesn't think they would deserve to be hated if they were.

Yeah you think and so the world must be so. Sigh. The whole 1% crap is actually admiration??

Wanting to take other people's money away and give it to some other sap is admiration. You learn something new everyday.

19   lostand confused   ignore (0)   2014 Oct 9, 9:43pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

tatupu70 says

lostand confused says

Now it is , there are legions of people-maybe lazy, but many not-who openly talk about wealth taxes and higher and higher taxes.

Wanting to raise taxes on the super rich doesn't mean I'm "looking down" on them. It means I understand how the economy works and would like to build a tax structure that produce a healthy one.

Really how does the economy work. How does taxing the rich produce a healthy economy???

20   tatupu70   ignore (0)   2014 Oct 9, 10:20pm     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

lostand confused says

Really how does the economy work. How does taxing the rich produce a healthy economy???

Because it lowers wealth inequality. Inequality is the main reason the economy is in poor shape right now.

We don't have a wealth problem, we have a distribution problem.

21   bob2356   ignore (4)   2014 Oct 9, 10:29pm     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

lostand confused says

Wanting to take other people's money away and give it to some other sap is admiration. You learn something new everyday.

lostand confused says

Really how does the economy work. How does taxing the rich produce a healthy economy???

Who is some other sap? Retirees that have paid into SS their whole life? Miliitary and military retirees that protected the country ( or at least the countries interests) that made the wealth possible. Government contractors who built roads, bridges, airports, shipping ports, etc.. that made the wealth possible. The people like judges, cops, prosecutors, etc. who run the legal system that made the wealth possible. Public schools and universities that educated the populace that made the wealth possible.

All (and many more) those kinds of saps?

Sure there are people collecting welfare and egregious abuses of the system (ssdi for one). But without the all saps that provide the infrastructure, educational structure, and legal structure there would be no wealth. Examples abound around the world, even you should be able to find some.

Try not to be such a simple minded rushbot.

22   lostand confused   ignore (0)   2014 Oct 9, 11:41pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

bob2356 says

Try not to be such a simple minded rushbot

Typical come out with insults and never have any substance and most of the times proved wrong.bob2356 says

Retirees that have paid into SS their whole life? Miliitary and military retirees that protected the country ( or at least the countries interests) that made the wealth possible. Government contractors who built roads, bridges, airports, shipping ports, etc.. that made the wealth possible

if you have read my posts, I always make a distinction between SS, medicare etc-where people have paid into it for decades vs welfare. but as usual you like to cloud issue in your never ending quest to prove your superirority in an anonymous forum.
bob2356 says

Government contractors who built roads, bridges, airports, shipping ports, etc.. that made the wealth possible. The people like judges, cops, prosecutors, etc. who run the legal system that made the wealth possible. Public schools and universities that educated the populace that made the wealth possible

The bulk of that money gubmnt spent came from taxes on the rich-not 300 pound welfare amam with 14 kids.

23   Reality   ignore (5)   2014 Oct 9, 11:57pm     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

marcus says

"100% of government spending in any country go towards make-belief "jobs."

You can't make this shit up !!

Right. All the money spent on Military, military equipment such as making jets, flying military jets, then local police, firemen, paramedics, teachers, social workers, courts, maintenance of old and construction of new infrastucture.

Also huge amounts of government money is contracted out to private companies, for building roads, or schools, or public offices. There's huge military contracts, the space program, and I'm not even montioning so many other very legit jobs having to do with regulations, or government agenciesthat you might take issue with. This is a microscopic fraction of total government spending, if you are including all the state and local.

All of this is jobs, jobs, jobs. MAny of which are the most real jobs there are.

Make believe jobs ? How can anyone be so clueless.

McDonald's selling you a hamburg for $1, a choice you the consumer choose to accept after considering all the zillions of competing options from Burger King, Wendy's, etc. That makes the burger maker a real job. If GovDonald comes around and charge $10 for a hamburger while banning everyone else making hamburger or sandwich, or download such a monopoly to McDonald's as a crony monopoly while banning all competition in providing food to consumers, then it is a make-belief job that charges way too much and should not exist, and the elimination of which would actually create more jobs in the free market place (just like those tax subsidies to lure factories into a state; the seen vs. The unseen).

Now apply the same logic to your list of "jobs." Do you honestly think the product and service from any of those jobs is more important than food?

24   Reality   ignore (5)   2014 Oct 10, 12:04am     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

tatupu70 says

lostand confused says

Really how does the economy work. How does taxing the rich produce a healthy economy???

Because it lowers wealth inequality. Inequality is the main reason the economy is in poor shape right now.

We don't have a wealth problem, we have a distribution problem.

Higher taxation does not lower inequality but increase inequality by shifting resources from realms subject to consumer choice into realms of government monopoly or crony that are not subject to effective consumer choice. The problem we have been having in the past 40+ years is exact this gradual shift from relatively free market capitalistic economy into crony central planning.

25   tatupu70   ignore (0)   2014 Oct 10, 12:09am     ↓ dislike (2)   quote   flag        

Reality says

Higher taxation does not lower inequality but increase inequality by shifting resources from realms subject to consumer choice into realms of government monopoly or crony that are not subject to effective consumer choice.

It never ceases to astound me the lengths you go to in order to say black is white and up is down. The above is complete BS with no basis in fact.

Higher taxation actually promotes jobs. It encourages investment.

26   marcus   ignore (10)   2014 Oct 10, 12:11am     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

"Reality" says:

McDonald's selling you a hamburg for $1, a choice you the consumer choose to accept after considering all the zillions of competing options from Burger King, Wendy's, etc. That makes the burger maker a real job. If GovDonald comes around and charge $10 for a hamburger while banning everyone else making hamburger or sandwich, or download such a monopoly to McDonald's as a crony monopoly while banning all competition in providing food to consumers, then it is a make-belief job that charges way too much and should not exist, and the elimination of which would actually create more jobs in the free market place (just like those tax subsidies to lure factories into a state; the seen vs. The unseen).

Now apply the same logic to your list of "jobs." Do you honestly think the product and service from any of those jobs is more important than food?

Wow. Do you reckon the other wingnuts will buy this ? I guess they will,...it is quite a low threshhold.

Let me see if I have it straight. McDonalds workers have a more real or more important jobs than cops, or teachers, or paramedics, or workers in the justice system, because McDonalds isn't a crony monopoly, and because food is more important than all those other things.

Yeah, I guess you schooled me. I'm speechless at this point.

27   Reality   ignore (5)   2014 Oct 10, 12:14am     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

tatupu70 says

Reality says

Higher taxation does not lower inequality but increase inequality by shifting resources from realms subject to consumer choice into realms of government monopoly or crony that are not subject to effective consumer choice.

It never ceases to astound me the lengths you go to in order to say black is white and up is down. The above is complete BS with no basis in fact.

Higher taxation actually promotes jobs. It encourages investment.

You are projecting your own habit of claiming the exact opposite of reality. LOL. Even your Keynesian school economics understand that higher taxation reduces investment and reduces jobs. You have to go all the way to bona fide socialist central planning school of economics to make the absurd claims you are making.

28   Reality   ignore (5)   2014 Oct 10, 12:18am     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Of course the production of food is far more important than the secondary "super structure" goods and services. That's why our government has not yet dared to let monopoly take over food production, and all the economies ever tried to let government monopolies run food production have failed miserably. The very fact that we can afford the secondary and tertiary goods and services run by monopolies is because they are less important than food production. You literally starve when food production is disrupted on a societal scale.

29   tatupu70   ignore (0)   2014 Oct 10, 12:23am     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Reality says

Even your Keynesian school economics understand that higher taxation reduces investment and reduces jobs.

Nope--Investment is on pre-tax money.

30   Reality   ignore (5)   2014 Oct 10, 12:23am     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

What people want/need is food. What McDonald delivers in that burger is encapsulating all the labor and resources going into that packet of food. If government mandates that McDonald's be the sole provider of food directly to human consumption, banning all competition, that would be the analogy of all the other government monopolies.

31   tatupu70   ignore (0)   2014 Oct 10, 12:24am     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Reality says

that would be the analogy of all the other government monopolies.

Such as?

32   Reality   ignore (5)   2014 Oct 10, 12:25am     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

tatupu70 says

Reality says

Even your Keynesian school economics understand that higher taxation reduces investment and reduces jobs.

Nope--Investment is on pre-tax money.

Investment is not about throwing money away, but seeking after - tax return. Higher taxation means lower investment. That's why there are tax - preferred investment vehicles that attract investors.

33   Reality   ignore (5)   2014 Oct 10, 12:27am     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

tatupu70 says

Reality says

that would be the analogy of all the other government monopolies.

Such as?

The claim that government military, government police, government school, and government roads are always good can only make sense to people who do not understand price or opportunity cost. Similar simpletons once even thought government food was good too, and many of them starved to deaths.

34   tatupu70   ignore (0)   2014 Oct 10, 12:57am     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Reality says

Investment is not about throwing money away, but seeking after - tax return. Higher taxation means lower investment.

Who is talking about throwing money away. If you understand how capital decisions are made, then you understand that higher tax rates actually encourage investment

35   Reality   ignore (5)   2014 Oct 10, 1:00am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

tatupu70 says

Reality says

Investment is not about throwing money away, but seeking after - tax return. Higher taxation means lower investment.

Who is talking about throwing money away. If you understand how capital decisions are made, then you understand that higher tax rates actually encourage investment

You are only making up things as you go and showing your utter lack of experience in making capital decisions. There are numerous tax breaks for special kinds of investment vehicles for a reason, and it is not for discouraging investment into them! LOL

36   tatupu70   ignore (0)   2014 Oct 10, 1:02am     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Reality says

There are numerous tax breaks for special kinds of investment vehicles for a reason, and it is not for discouraging investment into them! LOL

So, we agree then. Under current rules, higher taxes encourage investment?

37   Reality   ignore (5)   2014 Oct 10, 1:05am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

tatupu70 says

Reality says

There are numerous tax breaks for special kinds of investment vehicles for a reason, and it is not for discouraging investment into them! LOL

So, we agree then. Under current rules, higher taxes encourage investment?

No. Tax breaks mean lower taxes, not higher taxes, for the specific investment vehicles.

38   control point   ignore (0)   2014 Oct 10, 1:30am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Reality says

No. Tax breaks mean lower taxes, not higher taxes, for the specific investment vehicles.

I think if you looked at the percentage of component I in GDP you might see the point.

Tax rates have decreased since 1980; Net private investment has declined from 5-7% of GDP in the 70s to 4-6% in the 80s, to 3-5% in the 90s, to 2-3% in the 2000s, to 0-2% since 2010.

Lower tax rates encourage profit taking.

39   CornPoptheOriginalGangster   ignore (5)   2014 Oct 10, 1:49am     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Reality says

And yes, almost all historians and economists agree that the Roman dole, bread and circus, contributed to its societal decline. Why is that a surprise to anyone familiar with the historical facts about Rome?

But the annona food dole lasted for six centuries. Depending on where you want to start, counting the subsidized grain programs, even earlier. It was the Visigothic seizure of North Africa and Spain, a major source of grain and oil/pottery respectively, plus the piracy that intercepted shipments from Egypt, which shut down the Food Program.

40   tatupu70   ignore (0)   2014 Oct 10, 1:59am     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Reality says

No. Tax breaks mean lower taxes, not higher taxes, for the specific investment vehicles.

lol--OK, I take that to mean you agree.

Comments 1 - 40 of 87    Next »    Last »


about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions