Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Proximity" data-source="post: 7930118" data-attributes="member: 589997">What chart are you talking about, exactly? I posted one about GDP growth and yearly deficits. Neither do anything to prove that point. However, simple logic proves that point. If you disagree, I can pull up the post I made in this thread that illustrates that. And I know that you'd say that it works in that more return on their investment would increase their desire to risk capital and expand which would increase jobs, etc. But unless the tax rate is stifling to begin with, a 10% (or whatever it is) tax cut, I believe, won't increase that desire at any significant rate.And yes, there is no specific way to define specifically is dead center. However, I don't think you can deny that democrats are much closer to center than Republicans. Can we agree there? If the Democrats were as far to the left as the republicans are far to the right, then they'd be advocating for government control of what goods are produced. And that isn't me exaggerating.I feel that one you start making around the vicinity of $1,000,000 a year, then you simply don't need anymore money.  Your standard of living likely won't even increase at all past that amount, you'd likely just start hoarding it. I mean, is it even possible to spend $600-700k a year? And yes, they have done more significant things (education, risks, etc) to get that amount of salary, but I don't believe they work harder than a family making $4-50k working two jobs caring for multiple children. Does the small business owner who makes $80-200k a year work really hard? Absolutely, I've seen it first hand. But I would think that in terms of "hard workery", a graph's curve would look like skewed M as income increased, with people at the VERY low income (like,And finally, it doesn't matter why you call me an extremist because it doesn't matter you think I'm an extremist. Call me whatever you way, it doesn't prove anything I say wrong, which, at least it seems to me, is what you're trying to do by calling me an extremist. Because if you call me an extremist, you can dismiss my views without having to actually argue against them, or prove them wrong with logic (which, as you know, I think is quite difficult, if not impossible).I don't think I exaggerate that much. Do I? Are most of my arguments over exaggerations, like those of 007? I don't think so.And their opinion would be both correct and incorrect. Worker protections &amp; regulations are detrimental to business owners. (You didn't expect that, did you?) Minimum wage makes the employer have way higher payroll costs, and conforming to regulations that protects consumers and/or the envirornment cost them money. Outlawing children workers cost businesses a ton of money. etc, etc. On the other hand, these things improve quality of life, and, in my opinoin, create/support/bolster the middle class which actually allow all these small businesses to thrive. Those policies I mention are like a getting a rabies shot. Sure, it really ***** at first glance, but it keeps you healthy and is helpful in the long run.And thanks for admitting that you use ad hominem, or, putting my arguments "into context" as though it proves them wrong.I guess my response to this is, who cares? So people making close to $1,000,000 a year don't want to make more money. What is the problem? It might even be a good thing. Maybe it would provent people from exploiting others to make enormous sums of money. Maybe we wouldn't have corporations that own and control everything like GE if we discouraged people from making enormous sums of money. Maybe we wouldn't have millionaires and billionaires buying our elections and our politicians. Maybe it would stop businesses from forming monopolies or leave more of the market for other people to get rich off of? That would do wonders for our economy. For example, would you rather have one person making $10,000,000 a year or 10 people making $1,000,000 a year? I feel this is a pretty significant argument.Though the other side of the coin is that is might limit the size of large corporations that are actually helpful. Examples that I think of first is Microsoft, Apple, verizon, Amazon, etc. But if we championed employee owned businesses, I feel like this could be overcome.And, I would like to introduce one caveat: I think sports players should be exempt. They really do work their ***** off and deserve their paydays. (at least up to $10m a year).</blockquote>

Verification

Top

What's new

Forum list