hey republicans

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

This is why it's impossible to have a discussion with you. I'm explicitly telling you my argument is that tax rates (for the rich) do NOT have a direct correlation with the strength of the economy. But then, you completely ignore what I say and instead, tell me what my argument is (and that it's the complete opposite of my argument, no less). You're really good at agreeing with people, but you just can't hold a logical conversation without resorting to straw man or ad hominem.
And no, the Democrats are logically and empirically in the center of the discussion. They view government as a viable vehicle to solve societies problems but still want a capitalist economy. That is a centrist, logical view to have. It is not extreme. Republicans, however, actively deny that the government has ANY role in the economy, and that is an extreme right position. I'm sure you hate using your own logic against you, but this is just fact. If pure socialism is on the left and pure capitalism is on the right, the Democrats are in the center and Republicans are closer to extreme right than the center.

And sorry, I still think it's fair, morally speaking. No one needs that much money, especially when it can be used to help people who make barely 3% of that. Is that to say I'd support an actual policy for such an extreme position? No. 50%? Maybe.

And this is why I rarely respond to your posts, you seem to think you are smart enough to talk your way out of any mistake you make. You post that chart all the time, and use it as your proof that 'history proves otherwise' any time someone suggests that lower taxes would help stimulate economic growth by giving more money to business owners.

And its comments like that you think Republicans want govt to play no role in the economy that makes me call you an extremist. Id agree with you if you were to say republicans' argument tends to be muddled in vagueness (they want 'less govt' or 'smaller govt' involvement), but your extreme view only sees them as wanting govt to play no role what so ever. You claiming democrats are centered has no facts to back it up, merely your biased opinion, because you know there is no specific way to define what is a true central position to take. Ive told you before that I think you are a fairly smart guy, and I still do. Its just too bad you get so caught up in the liberal propaganda.

As for fairness, how is it fair to say nobody needs that much money? You dont say how much money you think is too much. Nor do you even factor in that, generally speaking, the higher wage earners tend to have worked harder (either by taking bigger financial risks, or advancing their education to a higher degree) to get that larger paycheck. Again, their are two sides to this debate, your side (that people buying multiple ferrari's should instead pay out that money to people struggling to buy their first home), and the other side (people who work harder or take bigger risks are entitled to the compensation that earns them). You are an extremist because you completely ignore the other side's argument, we've discussed this many times and your rebuttle always simply reverts back to your view, that rich people should support poor people more because they can afford to.

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

You're right, I exaggerated. But they still believe it's role is extremely minimal and want to remove or severely weaken activist policies that have been extremely successful and helpful to the average person.

What policies would these be? I am not claiming they don't exist. I think we have a different definition of what is and isn't helpful in the long run.

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

My gf is fairly liberal and we have a similar disagreement on what is the best way to help a person in need. She says we need to feed, clothe, shelter, and train them. I believe it's best to let a person hit rock bottom and but be very sure that there is opportunity available whenever they choose to seek it.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

You're right, I exaggerated. But they still believe it's role is extremely minimal and want to remove or severely weaken activist policies that have been extremely successful and helpful to the average person.

People who exaggerate tend to do so because they realize, consciously or subconsciously, that if they didnt exaggerate, their argument would prove to be much weaker than they are portraying it as. I say this because this isn't the first time you've had to admit you are exaggerating in one of these discussions in which you always try to paint yourself as the one using facts.

A biased conservative could claim liberals want to empower policies that would be extremely detrimental to business owners. Would their biased opinion be more, or less, fair/correct than yours? Please try to answer in a non subject context, because every time you reply with your subjective viewpoint of fairness, my mind always goes back to 2 years ago when you felt it was morally fair to tax all income over a million dollars at a 90% tax rate. And before you try to deny that you said that (as you have tried since then), I can provide a direct quote. I dont bring that up to rib you, but instead to put your view of fairness in its proper context.

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

audio - I'll take a crack at why he probably said that -- It's isn't fair that some people can have millions in the bank earning millions in interest while other people go hungry through no fault of their own. And the easiest way to equalize the situation is to confisgate some of the millionaire's wealth through taxation.

--

It does sound good. The millionaire won't miss the money that much and it will significantly improve the livilihood of the poor. The problem I have with it is that I think of lottery winners and how often they go broke. That clues me into thinking that it's not that we can dump a ton of money on poor people and they won't be poor anymore. If that were the case, I'd support such tax rates myself. The problem is much deeper than that. The best way I can think to help the poor is to ensure there are plenty of living wage jobs available for when they want them. The best way to do that is to allow companies to be agile enough to compete in a global economy.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

audio - I'll take a crack at why he probably said that -- It's isn't fair that some people can have millions in the bank earning millions in interest while other people go hungry through no fault of their own. And the easiest way to equalize the situation is to confisgate some of the millionaire's wealth through taxation.
--

It does sound good. The millionaire won't miss the money that much and it will significantly improve the livilihood of the poor. The problem I have with it is that I think of lottery winners and how often they go broke. That clues me into thinking that it's not that we can dump a ton of money on poor people and they won't be poor anymore. If that were the case, I'd support such tax rates myself. The problem is much deeper than that. The best way I can think to help the poor is to ensure there are plenty of living wage jobs available for when they want them. The best way to do that is to allow companies to be agile enough to compete in a global economy.

I agree, opportunities to help themselves are better (morally and logistically) than are direct hand-outs. And that's beside the fact that obtaining self-wealth (ie: greed) is a driving factor in a capitalist society. For example, looking at Prox's past view of taxing income over a million at 90%, if that were to occur, we'd see a lot of people get to the $800k-$999k income range, and then stop taking any more substantial financial risks.

 

[cyn 10+ year member]

This is why it's impossible to have a discussion with you. I'm explicitly telling you my argument is that tax rates (for the rich) do NOT have a direct correlation with the strength of the economy. But then, you completely ignore what I say and instead, tell me what my argument is (and that it's the complete opposite of my argument, no less). You're really good at agreeing with people, but you just can't hold a logical conversation without resorting to straw man or ad hominem.
And no, the Democrats are logically and empirically in the center of the discussion. They view government as a viable vehicle to solve societies problems but still want a capitalist economy. That is a centrist, logical view to have. It is not extreme. Republicans, however, actively deny that the government has ANY role in the economy, and that is an extreme right position. I'm sure you hate using your own logic against you, but this is just fact. If pure socialism is on the left and pure capitalism is on the right, the Democrats are in the center and Republicans are closer to extreme right than the center.

And sorry, I still think it's fair, morally speaking. No one needs that much money, especially when it can be used to help people who make barely 3% of that. Is that to say I'd support an actual policy for such an extreme position? No. 50%? Maybe.

Have you ever made more than 100,000 in a year? Have you ever owned your own business? Have you ever been paid as a contract labor/worker?

If you can't answer yes to either of them, you have no right or any knowledge to even spout off any of that.

If you raise taxes on people making money fine, cut out Child Credits, Put government assistance on a limited time period of 12 months and off for 12 months before you can get back on it.

Also, TAXing people does nothing for the economy period. Democrats see taxing rich people a way to increase their wasteful spending and upping their paycheck.

If every lazy Azz person got off welfare and every form of government assistance and wanted to work instead of being happy living off a government paycheck we wouldn't be in this situation nor would we be having this back and forth crap.

IE: Democrats want big government, more people on government programs. Why? so they can keep the votes and keep screwing this country into the ground and have complete control. The bigger the government and the more people that soley depend on the government makes for a bad country. Unless you want everyone giving 50-75% of what their EARN to the government so they can keep padding their pockets.

If people would quit complaining about what other people have and want to improve themselves we wouldn't need 80% of the crap the government pushes out on us as a country. But that will never happen because to many people have this mentality that they deserve what everyone else has, because the government says its okay to take from the people that earn it.

 

[double 07 10+ year member]

That is what is always left out......the wealthy didnt get that way by being stupid.....they will adapt and overcome.....they adjust things to combat over taxation.....PERIOD

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

I agree, opportunities to help themselves are better (morally and logistically) than are direct hand-outs. And that's beside the fact that obtaining self-wealth (ie: greed) is a driving factor in a capitalist society. For example, looking at Prox's past view of taxing income over a million at 90%, if that were to occur, we'd see a lot of people get to the $800k-$999k income range, and then stop taking any more substantial financial risks.

Oh they would continue to make money. They would just hide it better. I don't think you are going to have a guy shut down his business because he hit the 90% threshold, he will just take the money overseas or some other trick to hide it.

--

I think a lot about the game Oregon Trail and I often wonder what that would be like today. How many of the poor today would sell everything they had, throw it in a wagon and risk not only fortune but their very lives just for the OPPORTUNITY of a better life? Maybe I have a very romantic or misguided education on the lives of the pioneers, but I consider them heros. I wonder how many of today's poor would risk death?

 

[double 07 10+ year member]

My gf is fairly liberal and we have a similar disagreement on what is the best way to help a person in need. She says we need to feed, clothe, shelter, and train them. I believe it's best to let a person hit rock bottom and but be very sure that there is opportunity available whenever they choose to seek it.

I would love to hear some of those discussions.....lol......Liberal GF that sounds like fun....lmao

 

[cyn 10+ year member]

The way I get paid is Contract Work, no paycheck, no taxes and all that other crap. So my tax rate before any of my deduction is right around 48-49%, on any amount that I make. If I make $15,000 I owe the irs $7,500 right off the top. But when I add in all of my deductions for work expenses I drop down to around 29-35% depending on how much expense I have.

Now say I work at a business get a check, taxes taken out etc... I'm taxes around 25% +5%, So I make $10,000 I'm taxed $3,000 off the top. Now say I have 5 Kids,

ooohhh wow look at this I'm getting $3,500 for the first 2 kids then $2,500 for the other 3, So now i'm getting back more than I made or put in to taxes.

So when you **** cry babies that ACTUALLY PAY NO FSKING TAXES. Keep crying about the Rich paying 15% or 20% on their Capital Gains. But yet One Business owner will pay more taxes than everyone from the urban area's that voted for Obama. seems fair to tax people more because they have drive to better themselves then get pentalized for it.

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

I would love to hear some of those discussions.....lol......Liberal GF that sounds like fun....lmao

heh....We just hear each other out and agree to disagree. Somehow she thinks that giving $10 to the government can meet a specific need better than giving $10 to a charity whose only purpose is to to meet that need.

 

[cyn 10+ year member]

That is what is always left out......the wealthy didnt get that way by being stupid.....they will adapt and overcome.....they adjust things to combat over taxation.....PERIOD

We will see wealthy people closing up shop, either living off what they earned or moving to another country. Just from what I do for a living I see an unemployment rate of over 20% by 2014. Also you will see less full time employee's as they will be moved to 30hours a less a week.

 

[double 07 10+ year member]

I see this everyday as well....A lot of the so called poor are the very ones in front of me at the convenience store buying beer, cigs, and lottery tickets.....dammit they have it bad.....lol

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

Oh they would continue to make money. They would just hide it better. I don't think you are going to have a guy shut down his business because he hit the 90% threshold, he will just take the money overseas or some other trick to hide it.

Not shut down his business, but he will stop taking financial risks to improve/increase its size if the best he could hope for would be a return of 10% on any profits he *might* make (hence the term risk). Yes, he could move his further business expansions overseas, but within the context of this discussion, OUR economy, that would be equivalent to doing nothing more to expand his business. I know you realize this, just sayin.