Menu
Forum
General Car Audio
Subwoofers
Speakers
Amplifiers
Head Units
Car Audio Build Logs
Wiring, Electrical and Installation
Enclosure Design & Construction
Car Audio Classifieds
Home Audio
Off-topic Discussion
The Lounge
What's new
Search forums
Gallery
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
Classifieds Member Feedback
SHOP
Shop Head Units
Shop Amplifiers
Shop Speakers
Shop Subwoofers
Shop eBay Car Audio
Log in / Register
Forum
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
Log in / Join
What’s new
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
General Car Audio
Subwoofers
Speakers
Amplifiers
Head Units
Car Audio Build Logs
Wiring, Electrical and Installation
Enclosure Design & Construction
Car Audio Classifieds
Home Audio
Off-topic Discussion
The Lounge
What's new
Search forums
Menu
Reply to thread
Forum
Off-topic Discussion
The Lounge
Government Shutdown
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="audioholic" data-source="post: 7297999" data-attributes="member: 549629"><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Again, you now admit you were talking out your <span style="color: black">a</span>ss 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</p><p></p><p>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</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Uhm, yes I know what <em>inherit</em> means. I also know what <em>inherent</em> means. Obviously you do not. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif</p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Of course many businesses are stagnant, so what? That somehow disproves that businesses exist to turn a profit?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="audioholic, post: 7297999, member: 549629"] 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. 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. 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. Again, you now admit you were talking out your [COLOR=black]a[/COLOR]ss and making up numbers/facts when you claimed middle class income has decreased (see bolded part of quote), but you STILL aren't wrong. [IMG]//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif[/IMG] 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. [IMG]//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/crazy.gif.c13912c32de98515d3142759a824dae7.gif[/IMG] 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. Uhm, yes I know what [I]inherit[/I] means. I also know what [I]inherent[/I] means. Obviously you do not. [IMG]//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif[/IMG] 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. 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. Of course many businesses are stagnant, so what? That somehow disproves that businesses exist to turn a profit? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forum
Off-topic Discussion
The Lounge
Government Shutdown
Top
Menu
What's new
Forum list
