This is false. Please provide proof. If you can start with Bill Gates. From what I understand he became rich by simply taking advantage of the opportunities that came to him.
Bill Gates delved into the code for Apple's OS without explicit permission. Turns out the courts said he didn't need explicit permission given Microsoft's contract with Apple at the time. It's kind of a grey area. It's not downright unethical, but it's certainly not the high road either.
This is false. Please provide proof. If you can start with Bill Gates. From what I understand he became rich by simply taking advantage of the opportunities that came to him.
If you mean stealing the operating system that he sold to IBM for millions, then yeah ok. The guy he stole it from commited suicide after he found out the government wouldnt copywrite computer programming at that time and he had lost out on millions. The wife sued Gates and she dropped the case and no one knows why. If you want to over look that, how about running an illegal business monopoly that the government finally had to take him to court over? Or maybe how he kept employees as prisioners in the early days of microsoft? If you worked for him you HAD to live on grounds and needed permission to leave.
Don King was tied to the mob and went to jail for illegal boxing activity. Yet he is one of the highest profile boxing promoters in the sport.
Donald Trump paid off people to make his first real estate purchase in New York, then had to grease more palms to renovate the property.
Joe Kennedy was tied to the mob and ran moonshine back in the day. All of the Kennedy money is either mob money or proabition money.
Dont really want to get in a pissing contest with you over this.
Right because you can't back up your statements. that is all i wanted to hear.
Thru out time its been documented those with money do unethical to down right illegal things to get more weath or protect their wealth.
To bad history tends to ignore the thousands of others that didn't do it that way. you seem to have left that out of your myopic point of view.
Bill Gates started that way, Donald Trump, Carnagie, Rockafeller, Kennedy's.. The list is long and some high profile names.
yea and for every 1 of those guys there are a hundred that aren't that way.
I know many multimillionaires in the midwest. People that are farmers, in transportation, sales, real estate.. you name it, and all of them have had to do things, umm, unethical to get where they are today.
really? you know a ton of people and you didn't report them to the authorities for breaking the law? how come? or is it because like now you don't have any evidence or proof.
anyway i proved all i needed to prove.
the fact remains that the US government cannot continue on an unlimited credit card. it needs to be reigned in and controled and balance budget amendments put into place.
so that the federal government is required to live within it's means. our legacy entitlement programs need to be refined so that they cost less and will continue to grow and survive.
we have reached a point that this cannot be ignored anymore. raising taxes is not going to solve the problem. it is time to overhaul the tax code and get rid of this antiquated system that we have now.
lower rates and cut loopholes, lower the corporation tax to allow businesses to grow and expand and keep their jobs here.
fix investment oppertunites so that long term investments are more profitable therefore creating a more stable investment platform.
now if we could only get the morons in washington to see that, but it isn't going to happen with this lot.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Mystery, you havnt proven anything throughout this entire thread from what I can see. You disparage people for not giving you enough information, while responding with such great examples as "yea and for every 1 of those guys there are a hundred that aren't that way."
If you have such high expectations from those debating you, I suggest you apply those expectations to yourself as well, it makes for a much better debate, and less mudslinging.
It boggles my mind that people who sat quietly while Bush rode this country into trillions of dollars of debt decide to complain about the economy now that a democrat is in charge, and trying to right the wrongs of the past administration, while dealing with some of the nastiest mudslinging I have ever seen in politics (ie. "You Lie", Muslim accusations, The Birth Certificate Mystery, even the most recent "the President is a D1ck")
The last time we had a surplus was under a Dem, and then a Repub spent it all. Maybe we should give the Dems a chance, and at least let our president finish a term before calling him a moron. It took 8 years to wreck the country, you think it can be fixed in only 2?
Also, cutting taxes isn't as great as you think it is, otherwise we wouldnt be in a recession, because we've had Bush's Tax Cuts for years, and they havn't done any good. If the Govt needs money, you have to cut spending and raise taxes. Yea, both, not one or the other, but both.
You have not proven anything, at least to me. If you wish to ignore whats going on around you, fine. As for why I dont turn anyone in, I like my family thank you.
As for your take on what this country needs, it needs to start worring about us, the people that live here. Stop worrying about how other countries are going to react to what we do here. I do agree cut out the loopholes in tax codes. It isnt just the government that needs to put away the credit cards, its the people too. Its time people start living within their means.
For what its worth, its an on-line debate forum. I dont expect anyone to change their thinking from what is posted on these threads. I do hope some things that are posted make some start doing some research into what is being said. I have worked in the corprate world, its very easy to produce information to back YOUR side, and ignore information that counters what you are trying to get across. Long story short, do your own research if you dont believe, agree, with something thats being said on here. I know I do.
Mystery, you havnt proven anything throughout this entire thread from what I can see. You disparage people for not giving you enough information, while responding with such great examples as "yea and for every 1 of those guys there are a hundred that aren't that way."
ignoring articles that i have posted will not make them go away. they are there in black and white for anyone to read.
i am not the one making the claims that all these wealthy people are evil crooks that have basically stolen or cheated their way to the top so the burden of proof is not on me.
i asked for evidence not 1 person out of a thousand. i want an actual report or stat that backs up his claim other than "they are all crooks".
I suggest you apply those expectations to yourself as well,
i have please see the links i have posted.
It boggles my mind that people who sat quietly while Bush rode this country into trillions of dollars
actually i railed on bush's spending as well. i didn't agree with it either, but compared to obama it is a drop in the bucket.
The last time we had a surplus was under a Dem, and then a Repub spent it all.
the surplus was not real for the upteenth time. the surplus was a projection of future economic growth that didn't happen. clinton ran up just as much debt as any other president.
Also, cutting taxes isn't as great as you think it is, otherwise we wouldnt be in a recession, because we've had Bush's Tax Cuts for years, and they havn't done any good. If the Govt needs money, you have to cut spending and raise taxes. Yea, both, not one or the other, but both.
*sigh* why is it so hard to understand this concept.
they haven't done any good because the president keeps threatening an assult on businesses and employeers. corporations and businesses have no idea how much obamacare is going to cost them. they have no idea how much their taxes are going to go up. to make the economy grow businesses have to have a positive outlook. they don't that is why they continue to sit on 2+ trillion dollars.
they are making money with their reduction in their work force and are in no mood to hire because of the constant threat of more taxes and obamacare.
so that counters any tax cut that could be put to use.
You have not proven anything, at least to me.
it isn't up to me to prove your point. i asked for evidence and i am still waiting.
Long story short, do your own research if you dont believe, agree, with something thats being said on here. I know I do.
your claim not mine. it is up to you to prove and you haven't.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
It's really hard to imagine the U.S. defaulting on its debts despite how bad things are. But it seems foreigners abroad are taking note and putting their investments into British banks (which has its own sleuth of problems).
But osterity cuts can't be right, at least the ones aimed at the general populous. It's made things a ton worse for Greece, Spain, and Portugal.
Either way, I'm a tad freaked out.. as when things go bad in the U.S. my salary drops too.
It's really hard to imagine the U.S. defaulting on its debts despite how bad things are. But it seems foreigners abroad are taking note and putting their investments into British banks (which has its own sleuth of problems).
But osterity cuts can't be right, at least the ones aimed at the general populous. It's made things a ton worse for Greece, Spain, and Portugal.
Either way, I'm a tad freaked out.. as when things go bad in the U.S. my salary drops too.
The only reason that the US defaults is if the president and the treasury secretary doesn't cut the check for the bill. once the debt ceiling is reached it will be up to the executive branch to determine what gets paid or not paid.
the problem with greece and spain and portugal is that they were paying out large sums of money but not collecting taxes from everyone. tax cheats ran rampant. governmental corruption all over the place.
that really isn't the problem here. here it has more to do with out of control spending and allowing bloated entitlement programs to go unchecked.
hence why one of the ways of fixing the budget is capping medicare and other such programs.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Mystery, I am curious about all the threatening our president is doing towards business and employers. Since you didn't supply any proof, or even examples, I'll assume you are refering to the cliche neo-con "rich people are job creators" talking point. Is it the "raise the taxes on the wealthy a lil" talk that is threatening? Because taxes are crazy low right now.
And it seems like you are saying tax breaks don't work because the guy that just renewed HUGE tax breaks wants to reign in those tax cuts some? So tax breaks don't work because they arn't big enough?
Or is it Obamacare? BTW, you just went down a notch for using the term Obamacare. I was actually in DC when the healthcare bill was passed. I was working for a senator who helpped pass it. I can tell you there is a lot of crap in there, but there is a lot of good stuff too. You can't have politics without crap, and to think otherwise is niave. The bill is decent to say the least, and once the real effects begin, I am excited to see the change. As it is, because of that bill I currently have healthcare. So it works for me. That right there is a ringing endorsement, and one of the many reasons I appreciate Obama (there are many reasons I think he is an idiot too, but he is a darn good president).
Mystery, I am curious about all the threatening our president is doing towards business and employers. Since you didn't supply any proof, or even examples, I'll assume you are refering to the cliche neo-con "rich people are job creators" talking point. Is it the "raise the taxes on the wealthy a lil" talk that is threatening? Because taxes are crazy low right now.
then i suggest going and actually reading my posts instead of what you want to read. i have already outlined it several time, however since you ignored it before (just like the links i posted i will type it yet again.
1. Obama and crew are wanting to increase taxes on people that make over 250K a year. most people that make over 250K a year are business owners. they are LLC's or other business types that claim their income on their own taxes.
While you and others might not see this as a big deal, to the people that operate these companies it is. count it as one reason that employeers are not hiring people.
2. Obamacare. is going to have a massive effect on job creation and job growth than any other policy out there. in fact it has been so bad that the administration has had to pass out over 10K waivers to his healthcare policy. most of these have gone to special interest groups, but some have gone to legit businesses.
obamacare is going to drive up healthcare costs on employee's causing businesses to scale back on hiring and probably laying off people that they really don't need.
again yet another reason why companies are not hiring people.
the sited main reasons that companies are holding onto now over 2 trillion dollars in assets is taxes and healthcare. they do not know the end result and the expense that is going to be associated with it.
And it seems like you are saying tax breaks don't work because the guy that just renewed HUGE tax breaks wants to reign in those tax cuts some? So tax breaks don't work because they arn't big enough?
nope tax breaks work unforuantly obama doesn't know what a tax break is. his assault on the private sector has done more damage than good.
our tax code is crap. it is to large and to cumbersome to even try to understand or figure out. it needs to be changed and overhauled so that businesses and people can grow the economy.
it isn't hard to understand that the more money that the government try's to pull from the private sector the less it can grow.
you just went down a notch for using the term Obamacare.
not really as it is his bill, he owns it. thanks to him my insurance went up again. lucky i work for a good company and they ate the 9% increase.
I was actually in DC when the healthcare bill was passed. I was working for a senator who helpped pass it.
if it is so great why didn't your senator vote to get it himself. in fact they voted down an amendment that would require congressmen to get the same healthcare they think is so great for everyone else. i guess it isn't that great after all. ol yea they probably didn't even read the thing because like you have to pass it before you know what is in it.
You can't have politics without crap, and to think otherwise is niave.
sure you can it is called common sense. something that most of our senators and more so are president lack. the elitism that is espoused in washington makes me sick.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Save a complete and total restructuring of our entire economic system, a full on collapse is inevitable. The problem is, there's absolutely no votes to be had in doing what needs to be done, and there sure as hell isn't any short term money in it. Think about what kind of a response a politician would get if they stood up and said the following:
1.) Tax increases have to happen across the board to maintain support for the current base of people receiving benefits from entitlement programs. Say what you want to about cutting this and cutting that, the fact of the matter is that even if we removed all entitlement programs tomorrow, we'd still be paying off the debt they've established for years to come.
2.) Said entitlement programs need to have far more limitations placed on them in order to stop every yahoo with depression from collecting disability, anyone who's lazy from collecting food stamps and welfare, and especially the people who are sitting on unemployment and too dense to realize that their worthless bubble-based jobs are not coming back. Oh, and you also have to cut the number of people (which is down right ridiculous by the way) who are covered by medicare/medicaid AND raise the minimum age of SS collection by about 5 years.
3.) Cut the military budget by a substantial amount. I read something a month or so ago that said that defense makes up 90% of our budget and said budget is larger than the next 15 or so countries combined. Don't get me wrong, I love our military to death, but seriously? Are they flying diamond encrusted jets and shooting golden M4's? It's time to get real and realize that defense contractors have been robbing us blind for decades and sooner or later it HAS to stop or it will single handedly bankrupt our country.
4.) Oh, and while we're on the subject of the military, lets downsize our personnel and get the hell out of the middle east. I don't know about you, but I feel pretty safe with an arsenal of nuclear weapons big enough to kill everything on the planet 10 times over.
And that's just the main things that'll save us a bunch of money! Here's a few little things that would add up to a lot over time:
1.) Anywhere from 30-50k a year to support prisoners. Something tells me we could cut that in half, and if the prisoners have a problem with that, maybe they should try not breaking the damn law in the first place. Also, how much does lethal injection cost? I bet a bullet to the brain is a lot cheaper, and as far as I'm concerned, dead is dead.
2.) Federal student loans. I understand that you want to provide opportunities for people to get educated, but the fact that almost anyone can go and get any amount of federal student loans they want is pretty sad, especially when you look at some of the people who go to college these days. For Christ's sake, do you know how many political science majors I've met? They're digging themselves in ridiculous amounts of debt for a worthless degree, and while the government might garnish their wages, it'll be pennies compared to the total they borrowed because Blockbuster starts at minimum wage.
I could go on about this topic for days, and while I'm sure there'll be 10,000 people jumping up to refute what I'm saying in some way or another or call me cruel, I don't mind. As a matter of fact, I welcome anyone to challenge any part of this post and prove to me that all of these wasteful practices are leading somewhere positive.
nope tax breaks work unforuantly obama doesn't know what a tax break is. his assault on the private sector has done more damage than good.
our tax code is crap. it is to large and to cumbersome to even try to understand or figure out. it needs to be changed and overhauled so that businesses and people can grow the economy.
it isn't hard to understand that the more money that the government try's to pull from the private sector the less it can grow.
sure you can it is called common sense. something that most of our senators and more so are president lack. the elitism that is espoused in washington makes me sick.
Apparently you missed the part where Bush cut taxes by a substantial amount and our economy ballooned momentarily only to plummet face first into the depths of hell. But hey, after all, you guys have been right before haven't you? Remember how well things worked out when the government did away with all of those pesky regulations? That was quite a "boom", and a clear example of what happens when those elitists in Washington get of the way, wasn't it?
Here's a few things you may not know: I have 3 family members who are small business owners, and not a one of them has seen a drastic change over the last decade in how their business operates. Do you want to know why? Because small businesses get the shaft in this country and they have for a long time, and the red herring that Republicans throw out about how doomed they'll be if taxes are raised is just yet another lie manufactured to cover the tracks of their real friends. Who are their real friends? Walmart, Goldman-Sachs, Exxon, etc. you know... the people who fund their multi-million dollar campaigns.
But don't take all of this personally, because I don't hate your position and I can understand it from a certain perspective and within a certain framework. It seems logical and for the most part sound, until you take it out of the bubble and put it into reality.
Save a complete and total restructuring of our entire economic system, a full on collapse is inevitable. The problem is, there's absolutely no votes to be had in doing what needs to be done, and there sure as hell isn't any short term money in it. Think about what kind of a response a politician would get if they stood up and said the following:
1.) Tax increases have to happen across the board to maintain support for the current base of people receiving benefits from entitlement programs. Say what you want to about cutting this and cutting that, the fact of the matter is that even if we removed all entitlement programs tomorrow, we'd still be paying off the debt they've established for years to come.
2.) Said entitlement programs need to have far more limitations placed on them in order to stop every yahoo with depression from collecting disability, anyone who's lazy from collecting food stamps and welfare, and especially the people who are sitting on unemployment and too dense to realize that their worthless bubble-based jobs are not coming back. Oh, and you also have to cut the number of people (which is down right ridiculous by the way) who are covered by medicare/medicaid AND raise the minimum age of SS collection by about 5 years.
3.) Cut the military budget by a substantial amount. I read something a month or so ago that said that defense makes up 90% of our budget and said budget is larger than the next 15 or so countries combined. Don't get me wrong, I love our military to death, but seriously? Are they flying diamond encrusted jets and shooting golden M4's? It's time to get real and realize that defense contractors have been robbing us blind for decades and sooner or later it HAS to stop or it will single handedly bankrupt our country.
4.) Oh, and while we're on the subject of the military, lets downsize our personnel and get the hell out of the middle east. I don't know about you, but I feel pretty safe with an arsenal of nuclear weapons big enough to kill everything on the planet 10 times over.
And that's just the main things that'll save us a bunch of money! Here's a few little things that would add up to a lot over time:
1.) Anywhere from 30-50k a year to support prisoners. Something tells me we could cut that in half, and if the prisoners have a problem with that, maybe they should try not breaking the damn law in the first place. Also, how much does lethal injection cost? I bet a bullet to the brain is a lot cheaper, and as far as I'm concerned, dead is dead.
2.) Federal student loans. I understand that you want to provide opportunities for people to get educated, but the fact that almost anyone can go and get any amount of federal student loans they want is pretty sad, especially when you look at some of the people who go to college these days. For Christ's sake, do you know how many political science majors I've met? They're digging themselves in ridiculous amounts of debt for a worthless degree, and while the government might garnish their wages, it'll be pennies compared to the total they borrowed because Blockbuster starts at minimum wage.
I could go on about this topic for days, and while I'm sure there'll be 10,000 people jumping up to refute what I'm saying in some way or another or call me cruel, I don't mind. As a matter of fact, I welcome anyone to challenge any part of this post and prove to me that all of these wasteful practices are leading somewhere positive.
I agree with everything you have here. If we cut the military spending in half we still would be out spending the next closest country by billions. I would add cutting forgien aid and divert that money to those in need here at home. I never have understood the thinking on spending for prisions. If a person has cancer in their body they want to get rid of it. If a society has cancer in it, they want to study it and find a place for it. No! Get rid of it! Why study something you want nothing to do with?
We are/were an empire, all empires crumble at some point. I think we may be seeing the beginning of the crumble. Figure lack of employment, banks struggling, currency faultering, in-fighting with in our government (more then normal) all could be pointing to a collapse in our empire, or at least a shift to a new beginning of some sort.
If a person has cancer in their body they want to get rid of it. If a society has cancer in it, they want to study it and find a place for it. No! Get rid of it! Why study something you want nothing to do with?
Because by studying it we can device new ways to treat said cancer and perhaps even cure it? or said study might produce new discoveries in other related areas.
Im sorry if you were trying to knock on prison funding but the example you gave was just too bad to not correct.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from »
Call me old fashioned, but an evil ascension to power just isn't the same without someone chanting faux Latin in the background.
Oreo, Glazing people better than Dunkin' Donuts since 2009
That is not dead which can eternal lie. And with strange eons even death may die.
Because by studying it we can device new ways to treat said cancer and perhaps even cure it? or said study might produce new discoveries in other related areas.
Im sorry if you were trying to knock on prison funding but the example you gave was just too bad to not correct.
I think we have tried that for long enough. its gotten out of hand. We have been studying criminal behavior for 100s of years and we have found no way to 'cure' it. Its time to go a different direction, a direction that isnt such a drain on society emotionally or financially.
I'll agree that spending on Prisons is pretty bad. What is worse is when they privatize Prisons and try to turn them into a moneymaking device.
The government HAS to fund some things, like roads, schools, ect. They SHOULD fund some more things, like Prisons, Planned Parenthood, EPA, OSHA, ect.
Also, there is a link between education, job opportunities, location, and Prison. If you are in an inner city location with few jobs, have little education, odds are you will end up in Prison.
If you look at the statistics of criminal offenders, most of them are poor, poorly educated, and come from an inner city. These factors right there show how to reduce the drain prisons have on society. Have a well funded education system with programs in place to curb inner city decay (ie renovations) and most important, job opportunities.
I'll agree that spending on Prisons is pretty bad. What is worse is when they privatize Prisons and try to turn them into a moneymaking device.
The government HAS to fund some things, like roads, schools, ect. They SHOULD fund some more things, like Prisons, Planned Parenthood, EPA, OSHA, ect.
Also, there is a link between education, job opportunities, location, and Prison. If you are in an inner city location with few jobs, have little education, odds are you will end up in Prison.
If you look at the statistics of criminal offenders, most of them are poor, poorly educated, and come from an inner city. These factors right there show how to reduce the drain prisons have on society. Have a well funded education system with programs in place to curb inner city decay (ie renovations) and most important, job opportunities.
Sorry if I came across as we should do away with prisions, thats not where I stand. We need prisions, we just need to realizes as a nation there are some people that we can help, and there are some that will always be a cancer to society. We need to rid ourselves of the cancer and help those we can. Cutting funding in prisions would be a start. I am also tired of the answer to everything is to privatize something. Privatizing doesnt solve a problem, it just changes who has to deal with it and how it canbe handled.
I agree 100%. Prisons are an imperfect solution to an imperfect world, but there is still a lot that can be done to cut costs. I'd vote for taking away TVs and such, just don't ask for cutting too many Guards, lol.
Honestly, if we could do somthing about our nations War on Drugs we could free up a TON of space in prisons. Way too many people get an extended tour of prison for smoking pot. And don't get me started on Crack vs Cocaine, lets just say the laws are set up to put poor crack smokers in jail, and put wealthier Coke snorters on probation.
But yea, these are the things we need to fix to get our country back on track. We have to cut funding where we can, and tax people (preferably the wealthier 5-10% that can afford it) to make up the difference.
And Privatization is garbage for nearly all government programs, despite what the far Right would say. We need the government, thats why those founding fathers the Right Wingers love so much established it.
If you look at the statistics of criminal offenders, most of them are poor, poorly educated, and come from an inner city. These factors right there show how to reduce the drain prisons have on society. Have a well funded education system with programs in place to curb inner city decay (ie renovations) and most important, job opportunities.
I'm interested in your theories on urban re-development. Most redevelopment programs end up being ritzy condos followed by shops that support them. That downtown land is valuable after all.
This of course displaces the element of which you are trying to rid. You end up with this ring of decay around a few sware miles of uppercrust urban condos.
Now maybe by destabilizing it, the crime can go somewhere, but sometimes the upper ring drug dealers are in on it too making money on the land sales et.
Education doesn't work when there is no homelife, when nobody cares, when gunshots interupt your study time, when mom is bringing home a new man every other week, and slinging dope can make you more $$ at 15 than finishing school can.
We've tried "great society" stuff like housing projects. Where did that get us?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Out of the blackness and stench of the engulfing swamp emerged a shimmering figure. Only the splattered armor and ichor-stained sword hinted at the unfathomable evil the knight had just laid waste.
To say that increasing income taxes on those making more than $250,000 a year or more (which is after deductions meaning it can be a good deal higher) will really hurt the economy is pretty naive. Especially when the Bush Tax cuts are what? 3% on income, 5% on capital gains?
And regarding lowering taxes to bring in more revenue is largely bunk, yeah, given enough time, I can reduce taxes to 1% and eventually inflation and normal GDP growth will cause me to gain more, it had really nothing to do with the tax rate. Mystery45 is completely missing the following part of the Laffer Curve which is for Maximum Revenue http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve#Research.2C_quantification_and_empirical_data
For example, for Corporate Taxes only, "A 2007 study by the American Enterprise Institute, a right leaning think tank, found that the revenue maximizing rate for corporate taxes in OECD countries was about 26%, down from about 34% in the 1980s." which is actually more than most corporations currently pay due to loopholes.
Also, "A recent paper by Trabandt and Uhlig of the NBER found that the US and most European economies are on the left of the Laffer curve (in other words, that raising taxes would raise further revenue). The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics reports that for academic studies, the mid-range for the revenue maximizing rate is around 70%."
To say that increasing income taxes on those making more than $250,000 a year or more (which is after deductions meaning it can be a good deal higher) will really hurt the economy is pretty naive. Especially when the Bush Tax cuts are what? 3% on income, 5% on capital gains?
And regarding lowering taxes to bring in more revenue is largely bunk, yeah, given enough time, I can reduce taxes to 1% and eventually inflation and normal GDP growth will cause me to gain more, it had really nothing to do with the tax rate. Mystery45 is completely missing the following part of the Laffer Curve which is for Maximum Revenue http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve#Research.2C_quantification_and_empirical_data
For example, for Corporate Taxes only, "A 2007 study by the American Enterprise Institute, a right leaning think tank, found that the revenue maximizing rate for corporate taxes in OECD countries was about 26%, down from about 34% in the 1980s." which is actually more than most corporations currently pay due to loopholes.
Also, "A recent paper by Trabandt and Uhlig of the NBER found that the US and most European economies are on the left of the Laffer curve (in other words, that raising taxes would raise further revenue). The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics reports that for academic studies, the mid-range for the revenue maximizing rate is around 70%."
None of this explains why you think it's fair to take more from one group of people than from others.
All I hear is, "take from someone other than me". I think you're hard pressed to explain how the marginally wealthy get more than 20% of the federal benefits vs everyone else.
The whole tax code needs reform again, simply raising taxes on the rich isn't going to be sold to anyone who isn't already drinking the kool-aid.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Out of the blackness and stench of the engulfing swamp emerged a shimmering figure. Only the splattered armor and ichor-stained sword hinted at the unfathomable evil the knight had just laid waste.
None of this explains why you think it's fair to take more from one group of people than from others.
All I hear is, "take from someone other than me". I think you're hard pressed to explain how the marginally wealthy get more than 20% of the federal benefits vs everyone else.
The whole tax code needs reform again, simply raising taxes on the rich isn't going to be sold to anyone who isn't already drinking the kool-aid.
Any time someone brings up "fair" in this discussion, I can't help but laugh, because it really disregards how bad things are in certain parts of our country.
Tell me, what's more unfair: An inner city kid who can't get a quality education because his books and school are falling apart and he's constantly faced with every negative aspect in our society, or upper 1% guy not being able to buy yet another boat/house/ferrari/etc this year?
I'm not directing this at you, because you seem from your posts like a decent enough guy, but how sad is it that we have to ask that question? Is our individualistic "screw everyone else, more for me" mentality so strong that we're willing to willfully ignore reality in the interest of some illusion of "fairness"?
None of this explains why you think it's fair to take more from one group of people than from others.
All I hear is, "take from someone other than me". I think you're hard pressed to explain how the marginally wealthy get more than 20% of the federal benefits vs everyone else.
The whole tax code needs reform again, simply raising taxes on the rich isn't going to be sold to anyone who isn't already drinking the kool-aid.
If anything, I am the most unbiased of people in this discussion as 100% of my income is from non-taxable sources and won't be for another 2 years. But when I did pay taxes, I never had a problem with them, I considered them my civil responsibility and never thought I was being taxed too much. And I was one of the people making only about $22,000 a year in taxable income and still paid income taxes under Bush's tax rates.
None of this explains why you think it's fair to take more from one group of people than from others.
All I hear is, "take from someone other than me". I think you're hard pressed to explain how the marginally wealthy get more than 20% of the federal benefits vs everyone else.
The whole tax code needs reform again, simply raising taxes on the rich isn't going to be sold to anyone who isn't already drinking the kool-aid.
In Wisconsin earlier in the year budget talks were hot and heavy. The math was done and to pay off the deficit all that was needed was $33 from every tax paying person in the state. People were up in arms about having to pay an extra $33 to pay their 'fair' share. So instead, the Govener cut and cut hard and now people are crying even louder. Its a no win situation.
Tell me, what's more unfair: An inner city kid who can't get a quality education because his books and school are falling apart and he's constantly faced with every negative aspect in our society, or upper 1% guy not being able to buy yet another boat/house/ferrari/etc this year?
This is the thinking that got us to this point. People living above their means with the mentality, 'he who dies with the most toys, wins!' It is one of the reasons most countries look at us and shake their heads in disgust. But like I have said in other threads, we are the young bucks on the block in terms of age of counties. We are learning a valuable lesson, lets just hope it isnt wasted.
None of this explains why you think it's fair to take more from one group of people than from others.
All I hear is, "take from someone other than me". I think you're hard pressed to explain how the marginally wealthy get more than 20% of the federal benefits vs everyone else.
The whole tax code needs reform again, simply raising taxes on the rich isn't going to be sold to anyone who isn't already drinking the kool-aid.
The progressive income tax is supported, bluntly, because taking 10% of the income of a person making $50,000 a year hurts more than taking 20% of the income of a person making $100,000 a year. The wealthy can pay more before it negatively impacts their standard of living in a substantive way. If Warren Buffet, Steve Jobs, and Bill Gates had 75% of their income taxed away, their standard of living wouldn't change. They'd still be extremely comfortable, extremely well off individuals who had more money than any human being could ever possibly need for their lifetime. I'm not advocating for taxes that high, but a 35% tax on wealthy incomes isn't going to stop these people from investing or continuing to rake in large sums of money from the corporate or legal positions which shower individuals with it.
They can pay more of their salary away before it negatively impacts their standard of living in a substantive fashion. Flat taxes end up being marginally lower rates on the rich that hurt the poor because they need to be 20-30% to support the kind of services that people want. If you don't want there to be Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, or whatnot, then yes, you can have a lower flat tax around 20% or so. You would also need to convince people that this is a good idea first.
Reforming the tax code to cut deductions but reduce marginal rates would work. Even removing loopholes would be a hard sell in the current Congress, however.
Bill Gates delved into the code for Apple's OS without explicit permission. Turns out the courts said he didn't need explicit permission given Microsoft's contract with Apple at the time. It's kind of a grey area. It's not downright unethical, but it's certainly not the high road either.
If you mean stealing the operating system that he sold to IBM for millions, then yeah ok. The guy he stole it from commited suicide after he found out the government wouldnt copywrite computer programming at that time and he had lost out on millions. The wife sued Gates and she dropped the case and no one knows why. If you want to over look that, how about running an illegal business monopoly that the government finally had to take him to court over? Or maybe how he kept employees as prisioners in the early days of microsoft? If you worked for him you HAD to live on grounds and needed permission to leave.
Don King was tied to the mob and went to jail for illegal boxing activity. Yet he is one of the highest profile boxing promoters in the sport.
Donald Trump paid off people to make his first real estate purchase in New York, then had to grease more palms to renovate the property.
Joe Kennedy was tied to the mob and ran moonshine back in the day. All of the Kennedy money is either mob money or proabition money.
Right because you can't back up your statements. that is all i wanted to hear.
To bad history tends to ignore the thousands of others that didn't do it that way. you seem to have left that out of your myopic point of view.
yea and for every 1 of those guys there are a hundred that aren't that way.
really? you know a ton of people and you didn't report them to the authorities for breaking the law? how come? or is it because like now you don't have any evidence or proof.
anyway i proved all i needed to prove.
the fact remains that the US government cannot continue on an unlimited credit card. it needs to be reigned in and controled and balance budget amendments put into place.
so that the federal government is required to live within it's means. our legacy entitlement programs need to be refined so that they cost less and will continue to grow and survive.
we have reached a point that this cannot be ignored anymore. raising taxes is not going to solve the problem. it is time to overhaul the tax code and get rid of this antiquated system that we have now.
lower rates and cut loopholes, lower the corporation tax to allow businesses to grow and expand and keep their jobs here.
fix investment oppertunites so that long term investments are more profitable therefore creating a more stable investment platform.
now if we could only get the morons in washington to see that, but it isn't going to happen with this lot.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
If you have such high expectations from those debating you, I suggest you apply those expectations to yourself as well, it makes for a much better debate, and less mudslinging.
It boggles my mind that people who sat quietly while Bush rode this country into trillions of dollars of debt decide to complain about the economy now that a democrat is in charge, and trying to right the wrongs of the past administration, while dealing with some of the nastiest mudslinging I have ever seen in politics (ie. "You Lie", Muslim accusations, The Birth Certificate Mystery, even the most recent "the President is a D1ck")
The last time we had a surplus was under a Dem, and then a Repub spent it all. Maybe we should give the Dems a chance, and at least let our president finish a term before calling him a moron. It took 8 years to wreck the country, you think it can be fixed in only 2?
Also, cutting taxes isn't as great as you think it is, otherwise we wouldnt be in a recession, because we've had Bush's Tax Cuts for years, and they havn't done any good. If the Govt needs money, you have to cut spending and raise taxes. Yea, both, not one or the other, but both.
As for your take on what this country needs, it needs to start worring about us, the people that live here. Stop worrying about how other countries are going to react to what we do here. I do agree cut out the loopholes in tax codes. It isnt just the government that needs to put away the credit cards, its the people too. Its time people start living within their means.
For what its worth, its an on-line debate forum. I dont expect anyone to change their thinking from what is posted on these threads. I do hope some things that are posted make some start doing some research into what is being said. I have worked in the corprate world, its very easy to produce information to back YOUR side, and ignore information that counters what you are trying to get across. Long story short, do your own research if you dont believe, agree, with something thats being said on here. I know I do.
ignoring articles that i have posted will not make them go away. they are there in black and white for anyone to read.
i am not the one making the claims that all these wealthy people are evil crooks that have basically stolen or cheated their way to the top so the burden of proof is not on me.
i asked for evidence not 1 person out of a thousand. i want an actual report or stat that backs up his claim other than "they are all crooks".
i have please see the links i have posted.
actually i railed on bush's spending as well. i didn't agree with it either, but compared to obama it is a drop in the bucket.
the surplus was not real for the upteenth time. the surplus was a projection of future economic growth that didn't happen. clinton ran up just as much debt as any other president.
*sigh* why is it so hard to understand this concept.
they haven't done any good because the president keeps threatening an assult on businesses and employeers. corporations and businesses have no idea how much obamacare is going to cost them. they have no idea how much their taxes are going to go up. to make the economy grow businesses have to have a positive outlook. they don't that is why they continue to sit on 2+ trillion dollars.
they are making money with their reduction in their work force and are in no mood to hire because of the constant threat of more taxes and obamacare.
so that counters any tax cut that could be put to use.
it isn't up to me to prove your point. i asked for evidence and i am still waiting.
your claim not mine. it is up to you to prove and you haven't.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
But osterity cuts can't be right, at least the ones aimed at the general populous. It's made things a ton worse for Greece, Spain, and Portugal.
Either way, I'm a tad freaked out.. as when things go bad in the U.S. my salary drops too.
The only reason that the US defaults is if the president and the treasury secretary doesn't cut the check for the bill. once the debt ceiling is reached it will be up to the executive branch to determine what gets paid or not paid.
the problem with greece and spain and portugal is that they were paying out large sums of money but not collecting taxes from everyone. tax cheats ran rampant. governmental corruption all over the place.
that really isn't the problem here. here it has more to do with out of control spending and allowing bloated entitlement programs to go unchecked.
hence why one of the ways of fixing the budget is capping medicare and other such programs.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
And it seems like you are saying tax breaks don't work because the guy that just renewed HUGE tax breaks wants to reign in those tax cuts some? So tax breaks don't work because they arn't big enough?
Or is it Obamacare? BTW, you just went down a notch for using the term Obamacare. I was actually in DC when the healthcare bill was passed. I was working for a senator who helpped pass it. I can tell you there is a lot of crap in there, but there is a lot of good stuff too. You can't have politics without crap, and to think otherwise is niave. The bill is decent to say the least, and once the real effects begin, I am excited to see the change. As it is, because of that bill I currently have healthcare. So it works for me. That right there is a ringing endorsement, and one of the many reasons I appreciate Obama (there are many reasons I think he is an idiot too, but he is a darn good president).
then i suggest going and actually reading my posts instead of what you want to read. i have already outlined it several time, however since you ignored it before (just like the links i posted i will type it yet again.
1. Obama and crew are wanting to increase taxes on people that make over 250K a year. most people that make over 250K a year are business owners. they are LLC's or other business types that claim their income on their own taxes.
While you and others might not see this as a big deal, to the people that operate these companies it is. count it as one reason that employeers are not hiring people.
2. Obamacare. is going to have a massive effect on job creation and job growth than any other policy out there. in fact it has been so bad that the administration has had to pass out over 10K waivers to his healthcare policy. most of these have gone to special interest groups, but some have gone to legit businesses.
obamacare is going to drive up healthcare costs on employee's causing businesses to scale back on hiring and probably laying off people that they really don't need.
again yet another reason why companies are not hiring people.
the sited main reasons that companies are holding onto now over 2 trillion dollars in assets is taxes and healthcare. they do not know the end result and the expense that is going to be associated with it.
nope tax breaks work unforuantly obama doesn't know what a tax break is. his assault on the private sector has done more damage than good.
our tax code is crap. it is to large and to cumbersome to even try to understand or figure out. it needs to be changed and overhauled so that businesses and people can grow the economy.
it isn't hard to understand that the more money that the government try's to pull from the private sector the less it can grow.
not really as it is his bill, he owns it. thanks to him my insurance went up again. lucky i work for a good company and they ate the 9% increase.
if it is so great why didn't your senator vote to get it himself. in fact they voted down an amendment that would require congressmen to get the same healthcare they think is so great for everyone else. i guess it isn't that great after all. ol yea they probably didn't even read the thing because like you have to pass it before you know what is in it.
sure you can it is called common sense. something that most of our senators and more so are president lack. the elitism that is espoused in washington makes me sick.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
1.) Tax increases have to happen across the board to maintain support for the current base of people receiving benefits from entitlement programs. Say what you want to about cutting this and cutting that, the fact of the matter is that even if we removed all entitlement programs tomorrow, we'd still be paying off the debt they've established for years to come.
2.) Said entitlement programs need to have far more limitations placed on them in order to stop every yahoo with depression from collecting disability, anyone who's lazy from collecting food stamps and welfare, and especially the people who are sitting on unemployment and too dense to realize that their worthless bubble-based jobs are not coming back. Oh, and you also have to cut the number of people (which is down right ridiculous by the way) who are covered by medicare/medicaid AND raise the minimum age of SS collection by about 5 years.
3.) Cut the military budget by a substantial amount. I read something a month or so ago that said that defense makes up 90% of our budget and said budget is larger than the next 15 or so countries combined. Don't get me wrong, I love our military to death, but seriously? Are they flying diamond encrusted jets and shooting golden M4's? It's time to get real and realize that defense contractors have been robbing us blind for decades and sooner or later it HAS to stop or it will single handedly bankrupt our country.
4.) Oh, and while we're on the subject of the military, lets downsize our personnel and get the hell out of the middle east. I don't know about you, but I feel pretty safe with an arsenal of nuclear weapons big enough to kill everything on the planet 10 times over.
And that's just the main things that'll save us a bunch of money! Here's a few little things that would add up to a lot over time:
1.) Anywhere from 30-50k a year to support prisoners. Something tells me we could cut that in half, and if the prisoners have a problem with that, maybe they should try not breaking the damn law in the first place. Also, how much does lethal injection cost? I bet a bullet to the brain is a lot cheaper, and as far as I'm concerned, dead is dead.
2.) Federal student loans. I understand that you want to provide opportunities for people to get educated, but the fact that almost anyone can go and get any amount of federal student loans they want is pretty sad, especially when you look at some of the people who go to college these days. For Christ's sake, do you know how many political science majors I've met? They're digging themselves in ridiculous amounts of debt for a worthless degree, and while the government might garnish their wages, it'll be pennies compared to the total they borrowed because Blockbuster starts at minimum wage.
I could go on about this topic for days, and while I'm sure there'll be 10,000 people jumping up to refute what I'm saying in some way or another or call me cruel, I don't mind. As a matter of fact, I welcome anyone to challenge any part of this post and prove to me that all of these wasteful practices are leading somewhere positive.
Apparently you missed the part where Bush cut taxes by a substantial amount and our economy ballooned momentarily only to plummet face first into the depths of hell. But hey, after all, you guys have been right before haven't you? Remember how well things worked out when the government did away with all of those pesky regulations? That was quite a "boom", and a clear example of what happens when those elitists in Washington get of the way, wasn't it?
Here's a few things you may not know: I have 3 family members who are small business owners, and not a one of them has seen a drastic change over the last decade in how their business operates. Do you want to know why? Because small businesses get the shaft in this country and they have for a long time, and the red herring that Republicans throw out about how doomed they'll be if taxes are raised is just yet another lie manufactured to cover the tracks of their real friends. Who are their real friends? Walmart, Goldman-Sachs, Exxon, etc. you know... the people who fund their multi-million dollar campaigns.
But don't take all of this personally, because I don't hate your position and I can understand it from a certain perspective and within a certain framework. It seems logical and for the most part sound, until you take it out of the bubble and put it into reality.
I agree with everything you have here. If we cut the military spending in half we still would be out spending the next closest country by billions. I would add cutting forgien aid and divert that money to those in need here at home. I never have understood the thinking on spending for prisions. If a person has cancer in their body they want to get rid of it. If a society has cancer in it, they want to study it and find a place for it. No! Get rid of it! Why study something you want nothing to do with?
We are/were an empire, all empires crumble at some point. I think we may be seeing the beginning of the crumble. Figure lack of employment, banks struggling, currency faultering, in-fighting with in our government (more then normal) all could be pointing to a collapse in our empire, or at least a shift to a new beginning of some sort.
Im sorry if you were trying to knock on prison funding but the example you gave was just too bad to not correct.
I think we have tried that for long enough. its gotten out of hand. We have been studying criminal behavior for 100s of years and we have found no way to 'cure' it. Its time to go a different direction, a direction that isnt such a drain on society emotionally or financially.
The government HAS to fund some things, like roads, schools, ect. They SHOULD fund some more things, like Prisons, Planned Parenthood, EPA, OSHA, ect.
Also, there is a link between education, job opportunities, location, and Prison. If you are in an inner city location with few jobs, have little education, odds are you will end up in Prison.
If you look at the statistics of criminal offenders, most of them are poor, poorly educated, and come from an inner city. These factors right there show how to reduce the drain prisons have on society. Have a well funded education system with programs in place to curb inner city decay (ie renovations) and most important, job opportunities.
Sorry if I came across as we should do away with prisions, thats not where I stand. We need prisions, we just need to realizes as a nation there are some people that we can help, and there are some that will always be a cancer to society. We need to rid ourselves of the cancer and help those we can. Cutting funding in prisions would be a start. I am also tired of the answer to everything is to privatize something. Privatizing doesnt solve a problem, it just changes who has to deal with it and how it canbe handled.
Honestly, if we could do somthing about our nations War on Drugs we could free up a TON of space in prisons. Way too many people get an extended tour of prison for smoking pot. And don't get me started on Crack vs Cocaine, lets just say the laws are set up to put poor crack smokers in jail, and put wealthier Coke snorters on probation.
But yea, these are the things we need to fix to get our country back on track. We have to cut funding where we can, and tax people (preferably the wealthier 5-10% that can afford it) to make up the difference.
And Privatization is garbage for nearly all government programs, despite what the far Right would say. We need the government, thats why those founding fathers the Right Wingers love so much established it.
I'm interested in your theories on urban re-development. Most redevelopment programs end up being ritzy condos followed by shops that support them. That downtown land is valuable after all.
This of course displaces the element of which you are trying to rid. You end up with this ring of decay around a few sware miles of uppercrust urban condos.
Now maybe by destabilizing it, the crime can go somewhere, but sometimes the upper ring drug dealers are in on it too making money on the land sales et.
Education doesn't work when there is no homelife, when nobody cares, when gunshots interupt your study time, when mom is bringing home a new man every other week, and slinging dope can make you more $$ at 15 than finishing school can.
We've tried "great society" stuff like housing projects. Where did that get us?
http://smallbiztrends.com/2010/11/how-much-money-do-small-business-owners-make.html
Only 8.9% of small business owner's have an income greater than $250,000 a year.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2697
Small businesses employ 52% of the US workforce and account for 3/4ths of all new jobs.
http://economics.about.com/od/smallbigbusiness/a/us_business.htm
21.2 million people work for the federal and state governments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States#Economy
Which leaves only about 52 million for all other jobs.
http://www.khanacademy.org/#algebra
To say that increasing income taxes on those making more than $250,000 a year or more (which is after deductions meaning it can be a good deal higher) will really hurt the economy is pretty naive. Especially when the Bush Tax cuts are what? 3% on income, 5% on capital gains?
And regarding lowering taxes to bring in more revenue is largely bunk, yeah, given enough time, I can reduce taxes to 1% and eventually inflation and normal GDP growth will cause me to gain more, it had really nothing to do with the tax rate. Mystery45 is completely missing the following part of the Laffer Curve which is for Maximum Revenue http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve#Research.2C_quantification_and_empirical_data
For example, for Corporate Taxes only, "A 2007 study by the American Enterprise Institute, a right leaning think tank, found that the revenue maximizing rate for corporate taxes in OECD countries was about 26%, down from about 34% in the 1980s." which is actually more than most corporations currently pay due to loopholes.
Also, "A recent paper by Trabandt and Uhlig of the NBER found that the US and most European economies are on the left of the Laffer curve (in other words, that raising taxes would raise further revenue). The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics reports that for academic studies, the mid-range for the revenue maximizing rate is around 70%."
None of this explains why you think it's fair to take more from one group of people than from others.
All I hear is, "take from someone other than me". I think you're hard pressed to explain how the marginally wealthy get more than 20% of the federal benefits vs everyone else.
The whole tax code needs reform again, simply raising taxes on the rich isn't going to be sold to anyone who isn't already drinking the kool-aid.
Any time someone brings up "fair" in this discussion, I can't help but laugh, because it really disregards how bad things are in certain parts of our country.
Tell me, what's more unfair: An inner city kid who can't get a quality education because his books and school are falling apart and he's constantly faced with every negative aspect in our society, or upper 1% guy not being able to buy yet another boat/house/ferrari/etc this year?
I'm not directing this at you, because you seem from your posts like a decent enough guy, but how sad is it that we have to ask that question? Is our individualistic "screw everyone else, more for me" mentality so strong that we're willing to willfully ignore reality in the interest of some illusion of "fairness"?
If anything, I am the most unbiased of people in this discussion as 100% of my income is from non-taxable sources and won't be for another 2 years. But when I did pay taxes, I never had a problem with them, I considered them my civil responsibility and never thought I was being taxed too much. And I was one of the people making only about $22,000 a year in taxable income and still paid income taxes under Bush's tax rates.
In Wisconsin earlier in the year budget talks were hot and heavy. The math was done and to pay off the deficit all that was needed was $33 from every tax paying person in the state. People were up in arms about having to pay an extra $33 to pay their 'fair' share. So instead, the Govener cut and cut hard and now people are crying even louder. Its a no win situation.
This is the thinking that got us to this point. People living above their means with the mentality, 'he who dies with the most toys, wins!' It is one of the reasons most countries look at us and shake their heads in disgust. But like I have said in other threads, we are the young bucks on the block in terms of age of counties. We are learning a valuable lesson, lets just hope it isnt wasted.
The progressive income tax is supported, bluntly, because taking 10% of the income of a person making $50,000 a year hurts more than taking 20% of the income of a person making $100,000 a year. The wealthy can pay more before it negatively impacts their standard of living in a substantive way. If Warren Buffet, Steve Jobs, and Bill Gates had 75% of their income taxed away, their standard of living wouldn't change. They'd still be extremely comfortable, extremely well off individuals who had more money than any human being could ever possibly need for their lifetime. I'm not advocating for taxes that high, but a 35% tax on wealthy incomes isn't going to stop these people from investing or continuing to rake in large sums of money from the corporate or legal positions which shower individuals with it.
They can pay more of their salary away before it negatively impacts their standard of living in a substantive fashion. Flat taxes end up being marginally lower rates on the rich that hurt the poor because they need to be 20-30% to support the kind of services that people want. If you don't want there to be Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, or whatnot, then yes, you can have a lower flat tax around 20% or so. You would also need to convince people that this is a good idea first.
Reforming the tax code to cut deductions but reduce marginal rates would work. Even removing loopholes would be a hard sell in the current Congress, however.