Government Shutdown

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

In the real world, of course 100% taxes would ruin the economy. I used 100% tax for the point that taxes do not affect the ABILITY to hire. Of course a 100% tax would kill any motivation, but a company will still be financially able to hire people, ignoring the fact that at 100% tax the business would not exist. Do you get what I'm saying?

Of course I get what you are saying. Do you get what Im saying when I say that ignoring motivation is a key principle in justifying socialism? A company who no longer exists, because taxes have cut profits too much to make the risk viable to the owner, certainly affects that company's ability to hire.

You're technically right, but I'm skeptical of the real world effects. You know why? Because taxes have been dropping for 30 years and our economy is getting worse.

Of course Im technically right. Im also morally right, ethically right, and specifically right. So, why are you still arguing? We all know why, your ego.

As for the 'economy getting worse', care to be specific at all? Up until a few years ago, the US's economy was breaking all sorts of records in terms of productivity, adjusted median household income has increased, the stock market was increasing substantially, home ownership has gone up, etc. But the stock market bubble breaking, and the tech bubble before that, have certainly hurt the economy recently. As has differences in labor rates between countries in a more-and-more globalized economy (due to things like higher labor laws here, unions, even simply the difference in the value of local currencies). But your simplistic view of this macro economy is tax rates for the rich trend the same way, so obviously we ignore all the specifics that have gotten us into this economic slump, and just blame it on the rich people getting a higher increase in their income than you do. Jealousy.

Any 90% tax rate would be on an enormous income, like over $1 million. So if all of your income over $1,000,000 was taxed at 90% (which I'm still under the assumption I never said I was in favor of), how horrible would that be for you. You might as well be poor! I'm sure they'd rather be poor than have their income over $1 million be taxed at 90%.

You said you wanted 90% tax rates in the FU Republicans thread. I find it ironically funny you deny it now, because you finally realize how ridiculously unfair it would be.

As for your sarcastic simpleton remark about a guy would rather be poor than be a millionaire getting taxed 90% above that point, no. What it WOULD do is give people much less incentive to expand beyond that 1 million dollar mark, thereby arbitrarily cutting into the number of multimillionaires, so that the middle class can be artificially boosted by an entity other than the market. And we do all this just because you are jealous. Socialism from the bottom up, under the disguise of being fair. Economic redistribution at its finest.

Yes it has increased ON AVERAGE FOR EVERYONE. But 80% of the gains went to the top 2%. Why is this so hard for you to understand? does you conservative "I don't care about anyone but myself" mentality preclude you from understanding this?

Again, you now admit you were talking out your ass and making up numbers/facts when you claimed middle class income has decreased (see bolded part of quote), but you STILL aren't wrong. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

As for my 'conservative "I don't care about anyone but myself" mentality', I reside solidly in the middle class income, and I no doubt will the rest of my life. So your theory that my view of what is fair, rich people getting to keep more of the profit from THEIR investments, is simply me 'not caring for anyone but myself' is actually me caring about the fairness of someone I will never be. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/crazy.gif.c13912c32de98515d3142759a824dae7.gif

Who here is truly only looking out for them self, is the guy who admits his income level is better off than it was 30 years ago, but is mad it hasn't increased as much as the top 2%'s has. You can claim my argument of jealousy is hollow, but there really is no other explanation for it. Someone elses lifestyle is has increased more than yours, so you want the govt to reach their hand in that person's pocket and take money out of it, to give to you. Jealousy excused by a skewed view of what is fair.

I like the Democrats, that's no secret. But it isn't because of an inherit (do you know what inherit means?) bias I have for them, it's because I agree with their economic policies.

Uhm, yes I know what inherit means. I also know what inherent means. Obviously you do not. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

Okay, so you had a great straw man argument. Because I'm pretty sure that I never said I want his investment return to be only 10%.

You said it, in the FU Repubs thread, just like I also said in that thread Im not against the idea of raising taxes on the top income levels, just not to the levels you want. But you aren't even saying what you want, so I really have no clue what you are arguing against exactly. But that's not surprising, you didn't have anyone or any point made in this thread to argue against when you came in and started arguing anyway. I dont know is its a desire for attention, or a need to feel you are smart, but either way its obviously driven by an exaggerated ego.

They fill the demand to create a profit. Employees are required to serve the demand. Employees are required to create a profit. Less employees = less profit as less customers are able to be served.
Case in point, if a company is firing people, it's not because of tax increases, it's because of drops in demand. If there is an apparent effect on lay offs because of a tax increase, it's because the business was over employed anyway.

My God your brain is stuck in first gear. For months now you keep making the same mistake in thinking, even after having it explained to you over and over again. Higher taxes mean less profit. Less profit means less incentive to take the risk of expansion (because expansion does NOT ensure higher sales, even if the demand exists). Less incentive to expand means less job growth. Go take that econ 101 class you've yet to attend, then come back and tell us what you learned.

Because if a business isn't expanding, it doesn't exist. That is why every single business you ever see ever is closed for renovation.

Of course many businesses are stagnant, so what? That somehow disproves that businesses exist to turn a profit?

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

Do you purposely ignore everything I say or are you just a complete fucking idiot?

Like I ask before, do you even acknowledge that there are policy differences between the two parties?

Yes, Im the complete fucking idiot here. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif Im now reminded why earlier in this thread I said you aren't worth the time to debate with. Go take an economics class, and argue with the professor, because Im done. Claim this means you "win", call me some more names, jump up and down for all I care, you wont bait me back into discussing your ignorant opinions.

Have a nice day.

 

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

Neither one of you are right //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/uhoh.gif.c07307dd22ee7e63e22fc8e9c614d1fd.gif

 

[Proximity 10+ year member]

Do you get what Im saying when I say that ignoring motivation is a key principle in justifying socialism?

Despite how much it may advance your argument, I'm not ignoring motivation. Republicans ignore the need for motivation when they preach trickle down economics.

Of course Im technically right. Im also morally right, ethically right, and specifically right. So, why are you still arguing? We all know why, your ego.

You're right that more money means more ability to grow a business. Thanks a lot, Nostradamus. What you're wrong about is how much an effect you imply it has, how you imply that lower taxes will always lead to expansion, that all businesses must expand or else the economy will collapse and that money for expansion only comes from the profits a business sees in a single year.

Again, if you were right, the past 30 years wouldn't have meant a declining stand of living for everyone not in the top 2%.

As for the 'economy getting worse', care to be specific at all? Up until a few years ago, the US's economy was breaking all sorts of records in terms of productivity, adjusted median household income has increased, the stock market was increasing substantially, home ownership has gone up, etc. But the stock market bubble breaking, and the tech bubble before that, have certainly hurt the economy recently. As has differences in labor rates between countries in a more-and-more globalized economy (due to things like higher labor laws here, unions, even simply the difference in the value of local currencies). But your simplistic view of this macro economy is tax rates for the rich trend the same way, so obviously we ignore all the specifics that have gotten us into this economic slump, and just blame it on the rich people getting a higher increase in their income than you do.

Productivity increases, but no income increases for those increasing the productivity.

Logically, wages should go up with productivity. Capitalism at it's finest, right? Well, productivity has been going up, yet wages have stagnated. Thus, wages have gone down relative to productivity. Try to understand this.

For more specifics...

Personal savings rate has plummeted:

Wages have stagnated:

Debt/Income ratio has skyrocketed:

Income for the non rich has stagnated (and, again, gone down relative to productivity increases):

Yes, our economy is growing, but NONE of the benefits have gone anywhere but the very top. Again, welcome to conservative economics.

You said you wanted 90% tax rates in the FU Republicans thread. I find it ironically funny you deny it now, because you finally realize how ridiculously unfair it would be.

Yeah, find the quote.

What it WOULD do is give people much less incentive to expand beyond that 1 million dollar mark, thereby arbitrarily cutting into the number of multimillionaires, so that the middle class can be artificially boosted by an entity other than the market.

Guess what: If the middle class is boosted, that means more spending, and more spending means more people at the top. But I guess that is socialism, and so despite it's benefits, it MUST be bad.

Socialism from the bottom up, under the disguise of being fair. Economic redistribution at its finest.

Capitalism from the top down, under the guise of being fair. Conservatism at it's finest.

Again, you now admit you were talking out your ass and making up numbers/facts when you claimed middle class income has decreased (see bolded part of quote), but you STILL aren't wrong. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

This is why I call you a fucking idiot. I've addressed this 8 billion times, yet you either ignore what I say or you're just too stupid to understand. I think it's the former.

So your theory that my view of what is fair, rich people getting to keep more of the profit from THEIR investments, is simply me 'not caring for anyone but myself' is actually me caring about the fairness of someone I will never be. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/crazy.gif.c13912c32de98515d3142759a824dae7.gif

This isn't new information. You have been trained to worry more about the 1% of people who are making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year than the 60% who makes ****. Let's make the rich richer and the poor poorer. You know, conservatism.

Who here is truly only looking out for them self, is the guy who admits his income level is better off than it was 30 years ago, but is mad it hasn't increased as much as the top 2%'s has. You can claim my argument of jealousy is hollow, but there really is no other explanation for it. Someone elses lifestyle is has increased more than yours, so you want the govt to reach their hand in that person's pocket and take money out of it, to give to you. Jealousy excused by a skewed view of what is fair.

It's obvious I'll never convince you than I'm not simply jealous, so being irrelevant as to whether or not I'm right, let's just give it up. Me being jealous or not has nothing to do with whether or not conservative economics is good for anyone but the rich.

Uhm, yes I know what inherit means. I also know what inherent means. Obviously you do not. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

Okay, you got me on a meager spelling mistake. How desperate are you to appear smarter than I am?

You said it, in the FU Repubs thread

Like I said, find the quote.

I dont know is its a desire for attention, or a need to feel you are smart, but either way its obviously driven by an exaggerated ego.

I like to talk about politics, sorry. But either way, it doesn't make me wrong about conservative economics. but I know you really need to try hard to invalidate me, so sure, keep going.

Higher taxes mean less profit. Less profit means less incentive to take the risk of expansion (because expansion does NOT ensure higher sales, even if the demand exists). Less incentive to expand means less job growth. Go take that econ 101 class you've yet to attend, then come back and tell us what you learned.

Businesses don't need to be constantly expanding to stay in business and employ people. This is proven by the fact that the very large majority of business aren't constantly closed for renovation.

Of course many businesses are stagnant, so what? That somehow disproves that businesses exist to turn a profit?

*woosh*

 

[Proximity 10+ year member]

Yes, Im the complete fucking idiot here.

Thank you for admitting it. As smart and wise as you appear, arguing in depth with you reveals either how stupid you really are or how dishonest you are. You either purposely ignore what I say, or you're too stupid to understand/retain it.

 

---------- Post added at 05:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:06 PM ----------

 

Like I ask before, do you even acknowledge that there are policy differences between the two parties?

Stage exit right: audioholic

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

I try to be nice, but you are just an arrogant adolescent who thinks he has the whole economy figured out before he's even taken his first economics class. Maybe once you do take that class, you'll realize wages are based on supply and demand among many other things, not simply company profits. Im tired of you constantly being so dense, while acting so smug and childish. Grow up, and get a clue.

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

I try to be nice, but you are just an arrogant adolescent who thinks he has the whole economy figured out before he's even taken his first economics class. Maybe once you do take that class, you'll realize wages are based on supply and demand among many other things, not simply company profits. Otherwise, the janitor at Microsoft would make $500k a year. But then, socialist nutjobs like yourself think he should make $500k. Im tired of you constantly being so dense, while acting so arrogant and childish. Grow up, and get a clue.

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

 

[Proximity 10+ year member]

Maybe once you do take that class, you'll realize wages are based on supply and demand among many other things, not simply company profits.

So every time I've gotten a raise at work it's because the supplies of me have gone down?

Is the reason that wages increased steadily with productivity before Reagan is that there were less and less workers?

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

So every time I've gotten a raise at work it's because the supplies of me have gone down?

lol no. Its because the demand for you has gone up. The supply would be other people willing to take your job, and other companies out there you could change jobs to. Have you ever had a job?

Is the reason that wages increased steadily with productivity before Reagan is that there were less and less workers?

Is the reason wages increased steadily with productivity before Reagan because the wealthiest 2% were being taxed a higher rate? //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/crazy.gif.c13912c32de98515d3142759a824dae7.gif

lol