More new millionaires, more wealth... why a taxcut?

[IDL]

No. In a game where the government has the power to set interest rates, you need to do what the banks do or you get crushed.

Making laws that target enforcement on banks isn't going to do anything.

It's like coming up with new ways to target the drug cartels. It never actually makes a dent on drug consumption.

You can't win the drug war. You can't win the fight-the-banks war.

Stop price fixing interest rates. Let the market set interest rates based on real-world risk and reward instead of political or corporate desires.

You don't price fix cars or food because the same shit would happen. So, stop price fixing interest rates.

Pretty sure it is actually private central bankers that determine interest rates, and they work with their private central banking friends in other countries to coordinate such things.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

You don't have a script to answer this one? Its not very hard

I help pay for the Obama phone that you're using to reply on. Now do you want to continue the discussion on taxation or do I have to cut off your data?

 

[superpunch]

This post would indicate to me that you have a puddle deep understanding of what actually led to the bank and housing collapse. A great example of ideology over facts.

When housing was built to over-supply, the interest rates on loans to buy houses should have gone up to reflect a risk of a higher supply: demand ratio. A free market interest rate based on supply and demand would have done that.

Instead, the government price fixed interest rates too low satisfy political and private interests. They price fixed interest rates at a rate that would normally reflect an under-supply of houses and thus a low supply: demand ratio. Consequently, people kept buying more houses at higher and higher prices... then the crash.

You know what happens when there's an over-supply of oil? Oil futures traders and speculators see that and start selling their oil futures contracts. That creates a price drop in oil. The oil tankers don't want to sell all their oil at a low price and so they start sitting off the coast waiting for the price drop to stop. A few months later, the market has an under-supply of oil and oil futures traders start buying oil futures contracts again. This creates a higher oil price. Now, the oil tankers that start piling up in ports off the coast start selling their oil at these higher prices. Now, there's not an under-supply or an over-supply of oil. The market naturally regulates prices based on supply and demand to efficiently ration scarce resources.

However, what if... what if at the point that I bolded, the government came in and price fixed oil before the price dropped and kept the price artificially high? What if that happened?

Then, instead of sitting off the coast waiting to sell their oil at higher prices in the future when there's an under-supply of oil, the tankers would all sell their oil immediately to take advantage of the artificially high oil prices. Then the market would CRASH catastrophically. That's what happened in 2008.

Now, what would make more sense to stop that problem from happening in the future? Going after the oil tankers who dared sell their oil? Or would it make more sense to stop price fixing oil?

 

[superpunch]

Pretty sure it is actually private central bankers that determine interest rates, and they work with their private central banking friends in other countries to coordinate such things.

The head is appointed by the President and approved by the Senate like executive cabinet heads. They're really just another branch of the government in my opinion and try to act like they aren't because that's seen as unacceptable in economic theory. They're supposed to be independent of political pressure, in theory.

 

[HatchetHarry]

I don't support a flat tax, but how is it unfair?

Because someone who makes 1 million and pays 10% ends up paying 100k while someone who makes 100k only pays 10k. The most fair system would be a regressive system. It's unethical to expect higher earners to carry a much larger tax burden.

 

[Trotsky]

Cause wealth redistribution is theft

Man, you would make a great feudal peasant.

"I don't have a right to these potatoes I planted! It's the Lord Cumberbun's land! He just works harder than I do, that's why he gets my crops!"

 

[IDL]

The head is appointed by the President and approved by the Senate like executive cabinet heads. They're really just another branch of the government in my opinion and try to act like they aren't because that's seen as unacceptable in economic theory. They're supposed to be independent of political pressure, in theory.

I think that in practice the government just does what the private central banking network (which is centralized internationally through the Bank for International Settlements in Switzerland) wants. To think that this international network is a branch of the US government I don't think is accurate at all. Probably more the other way around, if anything. But, it probably doesn't matter all that much to this thread.

 

[kpt018]

Wait, did the jfk and RR cuts not result in rebounds of economy?


Then why is he bringing up market gains in a tax cutting thread? My "angle" is he will be benefiting in income tax reduction that he may will reinvest into the market.

And my last line refers to you also benefiting from tax reductions but judging from your posting history you will be surely donating all your net gains from tax cuts back to society, correct?

What evidence is there that the tax cuts caused the rebounds? How did bush’s tax cut help the recovery?

You can ask him but seems like a valid question. When we decide to cut taxes we should understand the goals and the cost/benefits. If high income earners are doing really well it seems like questioning whether a tax cut for them makes sense. Republicans are claiming it will increase growth and the evidence says it won’t.

Again, your last paragraph is ridiculous. What in my posting history suggests I don’t think people shouldnt make money or they should be required to give it all away? You haven’t read a damn thing I’ve written in here I guess.

 

[kpt018]

But to act like he magically pays a lower rate than his secretary simply because he's rich instead of admitting that he structures his pay to purposely pay less taxes is disengenuous.

Again, he is saying that being able to pay less is the problem. He’s fully admitted that he won’t pay a dime more than legally required, which is perfectly reasonable. He’s saying the tax law should be changed.

He’s really consistent on this actually.

 

[wonderbread]

Your post was accusing another poster of being a shill. I certainly commented on that.

Have you seen a poor senator? President? Their not gonna fuck themselves.

 

[b-hop]

This anwser a lot of questions.

 

[helltoupee]

Because someone who makes 1 million and pays 10% ends up paying 100k while someone who makes 100k only pays 10k. The most fair system would be a regressive system. It's unethical to expect higher earners to carry a much larger tax burden.

What's bullshit about keeping the money you've earned? Why do we even call that "trickle down economics"?

The person who pays 100K has more of a stake in the system. More property to protect, therefore he pays more all around.

He doesn't make a million in a vacuum. He fishes off the pier that society built. You don't get to fish off that pier, catch most the fish, and not be responsible for the providing the funding that maintains the size of the pier that you utilize and benefit from.

Lastly, your analogy totally fails when applied to taxes. The guy who makes $1 million is afforded special deductions and credits that are not available to middle class earners, reducing his effective tax rate to lower than a middle class taxpayer, as hardly anyone who make $1 million annually is doing so from wages.

 

[IDL]

The person who pays 100K has more of a stake in the system. More property to protect, therefore he pays more all around.

He doesn't make a million in a vacuum. He fishes off the pier that society built. You don't get to fish off that pier, catch most the fish, and not be responsible for the providing the funding that maintains the size of the pier that you utilize and benefit from.

Lastly, your analogy totally fails when applied to taxes. The guy who makes $1 million is afforded special deductions and credits that are not available to middle class earners, reducing his effective tax rate to lower than a middle class taxpayer, as hardly anyone who make $1 million annually is doing so from wages.

What sort of deductions and credits are you referring to?

 

[HomerThompson]

Have you seen a poor senator? President? Their not gonna fuck themselves.

*They're

 

[Unknown Pleasures]

Tax is a complicated matter that few really understand much about besides four options: tax rich people more, tax rich people less, tax everyone more because we need more central services, tax everyone less because tax is theft.

Reality is there is an army of different taxes out there, indirect and direct. Income tax, sales tax, tariffs, consumption taxes, capital gains taxes, dividend taxes, gas taxes, alcohol and tobacco surtaxes. Don't get me started on tax credits.

It's usually quite preposterous to hear people say X amount of people don't pay any tax blah blah blah. It's as annoying and preposterous as hearing peoples say healthcare is free in some countries (when it is socialized).

And what's also amazing is "redistribution" goes in so many ways, and different people in different ways, that to do the mentally retarded Alex Jones "REDISTRIBUTION" cry about any sort of thought of a tax increase on the rich is absurd because the wealth generated from one's labor and investments is a damn spider web of redistribution.

 

[SMEAC]

I help pay for the Obama phone that you're using to reply on. Now do you want to continue the discussion on taxation or do I have to cut off your data?

Of all the programed answer you self pwn

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

Are people really arguing that Reagonomics solved the economic 'crisis' that effected the late 70s into the 1980s

 

[wonderbread]

*They're

Thanks. On my phone. Not paying too much attention.

 

[HomerThompson]

Are people really arguing that Reagonomics solved the economic 'crisis' that effected the late 70s into the 1980s

What do you think?

 

[RockstarChris]

why do poor people pay 0 taxes? should be 100% equal.