Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Proximity" data-source="post: 7297919" data-attributes="member: 589997">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&#039;m saying?You&#039;re technically right, but I&#039;m skeptical of the real world effects. You know why? Because taxes have been dropping for 30 years and our economy is getting worse.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&#039;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&#039;m sure they&#039;d rather be poor than have their income over $1 million be taxed at 90%.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 &quot;I don&#039;t care about anyone but myself&quot; mentality preclude you from understanding this? Let me give you an example. If there are 10 people to whom I give $50 every week, I give everyone an average of $50 a week. But let&#039;s say I give two people an extra $50 per week, that means the average went up to $60! But the other 8 people are still at $50 per week. But the average went up? How is this possible?!?It&#039;s not just more than mine. It&#039;s more than 80% of Americans, and it&#039;s at their expense. I don&#039;t think that&#039;s fair. But obviously, jealous is the best argument you can come up with.I like the Democrats, that&#039;s no secret. But it isn&#039;t because of an inherit (do you know what inherit means?) bias I have for them, it&#039;s because I agree with their economic policies. Actually, that&#039;s a little vague. It&#039;s because their economic policies actually benefit people in this country.Okay, so you had a great straw man argument. Because I&#039;m pretty sure that I never said I want his investment return to be only 10%.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&#039;s not because of tax increases, it&#039;s because of drops in demand. If there is an apparent effect on lay offs because of a tax increase, it&#039;s because the business was over employed anyway.Because if a business isn&#039;t expanding, it doesn&#039;t exist. That is why every single business you ever see ever is closed for renovation.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Proximity, post: 7297919, member: 589997"] 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? 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. 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%. 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? Let me give you an example. If there are 10 people to whom I give $50 every week, I give everyone an average of $50 a week. But let's say I give two people an extra $50 per week, that means the average went up to $60! But the other 8 people are still at $50 per week. But the average went up? How is this possible?!? It's not just more than mine. It's more than 80% of Americans, and it's at their expense. I don't think that's fair. But obviously, jealous is the best argument you can come up with. 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. Actually, that's a little vague. It's because their economic policies actually benefit people in this country. 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%. 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. 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification