patrick.net

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

Reality says

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

Nope--Investment is on pre-tax money.

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.

Reality says

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

Such as?

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.

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.

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

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

tatupu70 says

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.

No. You are now engage in facetious upturning truth vs. falsehood.

Reality says

You are now engage in facetious upturning truth vs. falsehood.

And you are engaged in obfuscation. You are trying to change the point of the discussion. You know the point and you know I'm correct, so all you can do is try to muddy the waters and change the subject.

We're not talking about changing the tax code--we're talking about raising rates.

control point says

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.

Tax rates have not decreased since 1980 if you count the payroll tax increase in 1986. Government spending as percentage of GDP has increased significantly since 1980. That means, not only is government "investment" crowding out private investment, the GDP number itself is over-stating the real size of the economy therefore inserting a wrong denominator for the above numbers.

tatupu70 says

Reality says

You are now engage in facetious upturning truth vs. falsehood.

And you are engaged in obfuscation. You are trying to change the point of the discussion. You know the point and you know I'm correct, so all you can do is try to muddy the waters and change the subject.

We're not talking about changing the tax code--we're talking about raising rates.

I was not obfuscating at all. You were. Raising tax rates (effective collected rates, not just nominal brackets that nobody pays) reduces after-tax return on investment, therefore would lead to lower investment. What is your reasoning for raising tax increase investment?

Reality says

Roman Bread and Circus as one of the contributing reasons to its decline has been accepted ever since Edward Gibbon wrote the first modern treatise on the subject.

Edward Gibbon wrote about the decline and fall of the Roman Empire. Which are you talking about? The Republic or the Empire?

Weren't the romans perpetual invaders who subjugated the conquered people and made them slaves and constantly needed new territories to provide resources for their citizens? Also weren't they backwards followers of sadistic pagan beliefs who believed that either fortune or misfortune was due to pleasing/displeasing a plethora of gods which further satisfied their superego/id fused bloodlust?

Bigsby says

Reality says

Roman Bread and Circus as one of the contributing reasons to its decline has been accepted ever since Edward Gibbon wrote the first modern treatise on the subject.

Edward Gibbon wrote about the decline and fall of the Roman Empire. Which are you talking about? The Republic or the Empire?

Both. The Roman Empire was the corrupt version of the Roman Republic; many of the problems that Gibbon cited traced their origin to the Republic period.

Reality says

Edward Gibbon wrote the first modern treatise on the subject.

Modern? Gibbon wrote only based on what few of the classic works survive, long before archaeology. He was a contemporary of Benjamin Franklin.

It was also believed that the Polynesians couldn't sail the world, that the Vikings never reached North America, and that Wind and Watermills didn't exist until the later part of the middle ages. All wrong by a long shot.

Go grab a copy of any of Peter Heather's books if you want modern scholarship from people who do archaeology for a living.

Reality says

Guess how those civil wars came about? Fighting over the control of government programs and the imperial control of provinces for resource extraction for one's own cronies.

That is not the same as your initial point, is it? Why don't you just admit you made a glib comment?

dublin hillz says

Weren't the romans perpetual invaders who subjugated the conquered people and made them slaves and constantly needed new territories to provide resources for their citizens? Also weren't they backwards followers of sadistic pagan beliefs who believed that either fortune or misfortune was due to pleasing/displeasing a plethora of gods which further satisfied their superego/id fused bloodlust?

"Rulers of this Age" in the Bible refers to the Hellenistic Belief in "Daemons" or Spirits, who inhabit the air around us and give good or bad luck.

Dumbass Evangelicals interpret this as political entities.

thunderlips11 says

Reality says

Edward Gibbon wrote the first modern treatise on the subject.

Modern? Gibbon wrote only based on what few of the classic works survive, long before archaeology. He was a contemporary of Benjamin Franklin.

It was also believed that the Polynesians couldn't sail the world, that the Vikings never reached North America, and that Wind and Watermills didn't exist until the later part of the middle ages. All wrong by a long shot.

Go grab a copy of any of Peter Heather's books if you want modern scholarship from people who do archaeology for a living.

You deliberately cut out the leading phrase "ever since," so your writing is a pointless exercise in strawman tactics.

Your attempt to impress has failed. None of them has much to do with the subject at hand. It's quite irrelevant whether Polynesians reached Rome. Polynesians found their Waterloo on the Thanksgiving Island.

Reality says

What is your reasoning for raising tax increase investment?

It's pretty simple really. Think of the tax as the cost of taking profits out. The higher the tax, the more incentive there is to not take the profits out, but rather reinvest them.

Bigsby says

Reality says

Guess how those civil wars came about? Fighting over the control of government programs and the imperial control of provinces for resource extraction for one's own cronies.

That is not the same as your initial point, is it? Why don't you just admit you made a glib comment?

What makes you think these are separate subjects? The province of Egypt (the bread basket of Med) was officially the personal possession of the Emperor. Being the boss to run the dole program at taxpayer expense was a highly profitable business for the Emperor and his cronies.

tatupu70 says

Reality says

What is your reasoning for raising tax increase investment?

It's pretty simple really. Think of the tax as the cost of taking profits out. The higher the tax, the more incentive there is to not take the profits out, but rather reinvest them.

Re-investment is generally not tax-deductible except for under special provisions. It is almost always not tax-deductible in the current tax year when investing in new and alternative business ventures. Profit generally becomes taxable when it is made, regardless whether the owner re-invest it or not.

Reality says

What makes you think these are separate subjects? The province of Egypt was the personal possession of the Emperor. Being the boss to run the dole program at taxpayer expense was a highly profitable business for the Emperor and his cronies.

Which has what to do with your initial comment? Your argument is misplaced in time and the weight that you are seemingly putting on it.

Bigsby says

Reality says

What makes you think these are separate subjects? The province of Egypt was the personal possession of the Emperor. Being the boss to run the dole program at taxpayer expense was a highly profitable business for the Emperor and his cronies.

Which has what to do with your initial comment?

The Roman Dole created and enlarged dependent population (by both bankrupting the middle class farmers and encouraging welfare recipients), created financial/political power nexus, and brought about the down fall of the Republic as well as the Empire (Empire was just a corrupt phase of the Republic, as per Toynbee and Burke, etc.).

Reality says

Re-investment is generally not tax-deductible except for under special provisions. It is almost always not tax-deductible in the current tax year when investing in new and alternative business ventures. Profit generally becomes taxable when it is made, regardless whether the owner re-invest it or not.

You're seriously continuing to try this BS? Profit is taxable--that's why I was talking about using earnings and investing them rather than taking them as profits.

And if you are concerned that I called it reinvestment vs. investment--you are beyond idiotic.

Reality says

The Roman Dole created and enlarged dependent population

Sactly, gives me a haunted feeling of deja vue.

Reality says

The Roman Dole created and enlarged dependent population (by both bankrupting the middle class farmers and encouraging welfare recipients), created financial/political power nexus, and brought about the down fall of the Republic as well as the Empire (Empire was just a corrupt phase of the Republic, as per Toynbee and Burke, etc.).

The dole did not bring about the collapse of the Republic. That is a complete mischaracterization of a complex series of events.

tatupu70 says

You're seriously continuing to try this BS? Profit is taxable--that's why I was talking about using earnings and investing them rather than taking them as profits.

And if you are concerned that I called it reinvestment vs. investment--you are beyond idiotic.

Earnings are taxable regardless whether it is subsequently invested / re-invested or not. Say, if you are an apple dealer, you spend $2000 buy apples, and sell them for $3000; that $1000 earnings become taxable regardless whether you put it towards new apples or new oranges or anything else or nothing at all.