• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Does anyone buy the Democratic demagoguery?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
People are rich because they are ambitious and want money. They are competitively driven. Therefore it's is important to tax them mightily. The less they can take home the harder they will work to amass a fortune and the more they will pay in tax. So high taxes benefits them by honing their competitive capabilities and it helps the rest of the slugs with a gravy train of tax money to spent creating a beautiful country for the rich to try to own. An unmilked cow suffers utterly and eventually dries up.

If the government provides a disincentive for entrepreneurship, those who are "ambitious and want money" will get frustrated and give up or will look for black market opportunitues.

Yep. Prohibit the legal acquisition or enjoyment of a right, good, or service and black markets will inevitably arise. Notice here that I'm not justifying tax evasion. If a person willfully violates the tax code, they should be punished accordingly. However, that doesn't mean that certain provisions are right or appropriate.

Remember, we're all equal. Some are just more equal than others.
 
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
People are rich because they are ambitious and want money. They are competitively driven. Therefore it's is important to tax them mightily. The less they can take home the harder they will work to amass a fortune and the more they will pay in tax. So high taxes benefits them by honing their competitive capabilities and it helps the rest of the slugs with a gravy train of tax money to spent creating a beautiful country for the rich to try to own. An unmilked cow suffers utterly and eventually dries up.

If the government provides a disincentive for entrepreneurship, those who are "ambitious and want money" will get frustrated and give up or will look for black market opportunitues.
No. You might have a point if incomes taxes were 80%. They are not and you do not. People who are ambitious and want money will still try to make as much money as they can. The honest ones will work within the system. The dishonest ones will not. Same as now. As long as entrepreneurship is allowed, there will be entrepreneurs.


---------------------
Bush Apologists of America (BAA): pulling the wool over America's eyes since 1980
 
Originally posted by: Ldir
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
People are rich because they are ambitious and want money. They are competitively driven. Therefore it's is important to tax them mightily. The less they can take home the harder they will work to amass a fortune and the more they will pay in tax. So high taxes benefits them by honing their competitive capabilities and it helps the rest of the slugs with a gravy train of tax money to spent creating a beautiful country for the rich to try to own. An unmilked cow suffers utterly and eventually dries up.

If the government provides a disincentive for entrepreneurship, those who are "ambitious and want money" will get frustrated and give up or will look for black market opportunitues.
No. You might have a point if incomes taxes were 80%. They are not and you do not. People who are ambitious and want money will still try to make as much money as they can. The honest ones will work within the system. The dishonest ones will not. Same as now. As long as entrepreneurship is allowed, there will be entrepreneurs.


---------------------
Bush Apologists of America (BAA): pulling the wool over America's eyes since 1980

:roll:

Your stereotyping only betrays your immaturity. People should know from my posts here that I dislike Bush, but that I dislike progressive taxation and its stilted logic just as much. People are indeed capable of holding a variety of views on a variety of subjects, and not everyone is bound by party lines.

So I would ask you, what is the optimal level of taxation? Would you propose a tax floor, below which income is not taxed? How much should high-wage earners sacrifice so that the low-wage earners can live tax-free?
 
Originally posted by: Orsorum
roll;

Your stereotyping only betrays your immaturity. People should know from my posts here that I dislike Bush, but that I dislike progressive taxation and its stilted logic just as much. People are indeed capable of holding a variety of views on a variety of subjects, and not everyone is bound by party lines.

So I would ask you, what is the optimal level of taxation? Would you propose a tax floor, below which income is not taxed? How much should high-wage earners sacrifice so that the low-wage earners can live tax-free?

One would hope that if it ever did come to that (A Tax floor) the ones who actually work and pay taxes would overthrow the government as that would be truly unfair.
 
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: thuper
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Todd33
It's a progressive tax system, get over it or move out.

Or point out it's absurdity and work to change it😉

CkG

Its not absurd.
Sales taxes are regressive.
Income tax is progressive.

It evens out.

Ah right - the old argument about "regressive" taxes "evening" things. I suppose you also think it makes things "fair" too😛 Anyway - my comments about about the "progressive" taxes. The whole "progrssive" income tax structure IS absurd.
Thoman JeffersonWhat more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow citizens--a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.

CkG


hah, just remember jefferson was against military spending.


The Father of Modern Capitalist Thought on Progressive Taxation

"The subjects of every state ought to contribute toward the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state ....[As Henry Home (Lord Kames) has written, a goal of taxation should be to] 'remedy inequality of riches as much as possible, by relieving the poor and burdening the rich.'"

Adam Smith

-- AN INQUIRY INTO THE NATURE AND CAUSES OF THE WEALTH OF NATIONS (1776)
 
Originally posted by: Orsorum
Originally posted by: Ldir
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
People are rich because they are ambitious and want money. They are competitively driven. Therefore it's is important to tax them mightily. The less they can take home the harder they will work to amass a fortune and the more they will pay in tax. So high taxes benefits them by honing their competitive capabilities and it helps the rest of the slugs with a gravy train of tax money to spent creating a beautiful country for the rich to try to own. An unmilked cow suffers utterly and eventually dries up.

If the government provides a disincentive for entrepreneurship, those who are "ambitious and want money" will get frustrated and give up or will look for black market opportunitues.
No. You might have a point if incomes taxes were 80%. They are not and you do not. People who are ambitious and want money will still try to make as much money as they can. The honest ones will work within the system. The dishonest ones will not. Same as now. As long as entrepreneurship is allowed, there will be entrepreneurs.


---------------------
Bush Apologists of America (BAA): pulling the wool over America's eyes since 1980

:roll:

Your stereotyping only betrays your immaturity. People should know from my posts here that I dislike Bush, but that I dislike progressive taxation and its stilted logic just as much. People are indeed capable of holding a variety of views on a variety of subjects, and not everyone is bound by party lines.

So I would ask you, what is the optimal level of taxation? Would you propose a tax floor, below which income is not taxed? How much should high-wage earners sacrifice so that the low-wage earners can live tax-free?

:roll: yourself. What stereotyping? The body of my remark was about entrepreneurs and taxes. Do you disagree with my stereotype of entrepreneurs or are you diverting about my Sig? The only immaturity I see is your jumping to conclusions.
 
Originally posted by: Ldir
Originally posted by: Orsorum
Originally posted by: Ldir
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
People are rich because they are ambitious and want money. They are competitively driven. Therefore it's is important to tax them mightily. The less they can take home the harder they will work to amass a fortune and the more they will pay in tax. So high taxes benefits them by honing their competitive capabilities and it helps the rest of the slugs with a gravy train of tax money to spent creating a beautiful country for the rich to try to own. An unmilked cow suffers utterly and eventually dries up.

If the government provides a disincentive for entrepreneurship, those who are "ambitious and want money" will get frustrated and give up or will look for black market opportunitues.
No. You might have a point if incomes taxes were 80%. They are not and you do not. People who are ambitious and want money will still try to make as much money as they can. The honest ones will work within the system. The dishonest ones will not. Same as now. As long as entrepreneurship is allowed, there will be entrepreneurs.


---------------------
Bush Apologists of America (BAA): pulling the wool over America's eyes since 1980

:roll:

Your stereotyping only betrays your immaturity. People should know from my posts here that I dislike Bush, but that I dislike progressive taxation and its stilted logic just as much. People are indeed capable of holding a variety of views on a variety of subjects, and not everyone is bound by party lines.

So I would ask you, what is the optimal level of taxation? Would you propose a tax floor, below which income is not taxed? How much should high-wage earners sacrifice so that the low-wage earners can live tax-free?

:roll: yourself. What stereotyping? The body of my remark was about entrepreneurs and taxes. Do you disagree with my stereotype of entrepreneurs or are you diverting about my Sig? The only immaturity I see is your jumping to conclusions.

I'm referring to your signature. It appears to be an intentional addendum to your remarks that was meant to characterize Riprorin as a YABA because of his views on taxation.
 
Originally posted by: Ldir
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
People are rich because they are ambitious and want money. They are competitively driven. Therefore it's is important to tax them mightily. The less they can take home the harder they will work to amass a fortune and the more they will pay in tax. So high taxes benefits them by honing their competitive capabilities and it helps the rest of the slugs with a gravy train of tax money to spent creating a beautiful country for the rich to try to own. An unmilked cow suffers utterly and eventually dries up.

If the government provides a disincentive for entrepreneurship, those who are "ambitious and want money" will get frustrated and give up or will look for black market opportunitues.
No. You might have a point if incomes taxes were 80%. They are not and you do not. People who are ambitious and want money will still try to make as much money as they can. The honest ones will work within the system. The dishonest ones will not. Same as now. As long as entrepreneurship is allowed, there will be entrepreneurs.


---------------------
Bush Apologists of America (BAA): pulling the wool over America's eyes since 1980

What income classfies someone as "rich" and what level of taxes do you think the rich should pay?
 
Originally posted by: glenn1
$250bill surplus before bush tax cut, $150bill deficit right after...continued by larger and larger deficits...
that's how much it is worth.

Drop the bullsh!t. The left doesn't and never has given a rats ass about deficits or surpluses any more than the right has proven to. The reason they're mad at the Bush tax cuts is because it left your side less money to spend. And unless and until someone gets serious about spending cuts, the American public is going to oppose rescinding the Bush tax cuts, and with good reason.

What bullsh1t?

The surplus was real; the deficit is real (actually, discounted about 1-3% for inflation, IIRC my long debate on this with HS).

You need to get serious about spending cuts BEFORE you start slashing taxes, not after!
 
The golden rule is alive and well...here and everywhere else.

Those that have the gold make the rules--and they make the rules in their favor--always. Make no mistake about that.

Everything else is total BS.

Its not a left vs. right issue.

Its a scumbag vs. socially-responsible-human issue
 
Originally posted by: Todd33
It's a progressive tax system, get over it or move out.

Actually, it isn't. After your income exceeds $87,600, your tax rate drops 15.3% as you no longer have to pay the FICA portion of the income tax. There are also many deductions available only to people who have enough money, like mortage interest deductions and many less common ones.
 
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: Ldir
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
People are rich because they are ambitious and want money. They are competitively driven. Therefore it's is important to tax them mightily. The less they can take home the harder they will work to amass a fortune and the more they will pay in tax. So high taxes benefits them by honing their competitive capabilities and it helps the rest of the slugs with a gravy train of tax money to spent creating a beautiful country for the rich to try to own. An unmilked cow suffers utterly and eventually dries up.

If the government provides a disincentive for entrepreneurship, those who are "ambitious and want money" will get frustrated and give up or will look for black market opportunitues.
No. You might have a point if incomes taxes were 80%. They are not and you do not. People who are ambitious and want money will still try to make as much money as they can. The honest ones will work within the system. The dishonest ones will not. Same as now. As long as entrepreneurship is allowed, there will be entrepreneurs.


---------------------
Bush Apologists of America (BAA): pulling the wool over America's eyes since 1980

What income classfies someone as "rich" and what level of taxes do you think the rich should pay?

Ask someone who used the word rich. I did not.

Your point is still wrong. Do not change the subject.


--------------------
Bush Apologists of America (BAA): pulling the wool over America's eyes since 1980.
 
Originally posted by: Stunt

$250bill surplus before bush tax cut, $150bill deficit right after...continued by larger and larger deficits...
that's how much it is worth.

You can't seriously believe that is Bush's fault. How naive can you get? You are just another person trying to talk economics when you in fact know NOTHING about it.
 
Originally posted by: XZeroII
Originally posted by: Stunt

$250bill surplus before bush tax cut, $150bill deficit right after...continued by larger and larger deficits...
that's how much it is worth.

You can't seriously believe that is Bush's fault. How naive can you get? You are just another person trying to talk economics when you in fact know NOTHING about it.

uhhh i think you jumped on the wrong bandwagon....

The economic downturn wasn't bushes fault, the contemporary economical theory argues for the cyclical nature of capitalistic markets - ie youll go thru booms and busts and theres not much to be done about it.

However poor budgeting and universal tax cutting will turn the surplus into deficit. Where do you think the money went? You can argue that the dept would rise to some degree as we try fiscal policies to curb the downturn of the economy, but look at the slope of the curve and tell me where its going

<- econ major at u of michigan
 
Originally posted by: Ldir
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: Ldir
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
People are rich because they are ambitious and want money. They are competitively driven. Therefore it's is important to tax them mightily. The less they can take home the harder they will work to amass a fortune and the more they will pay in tax. So high taxes benefits them by honing their competitive capabilities and it helps the rest of the slugs with a gravy train of tax money to spent creating a beautiful country for the rich to try to own. An unmilked cow suffers utterly and eventually dries up.

If the government provides a disincentive for entrepreneurship, those who are "ambitious and want money" will get frustrated and give up or will look for black market opportunitues.
No. You might have a point if incomes taxes were 80%. They are not and you do not. People who are ambitious and want money will still try to make as much money as they can. The honest ones will work within the system. The dishonest ones will not. Same as now. As long as entrepreneurship is allowed, there will be entrepreneurs.


---------------------
Bush Apologists of America (BAA): pulling the wool over America's eyes since 1980

What income classfies someone as "rich" and what level of taxes do you think the rich should pay?

Ask someone who used the word rich. I did not.

Your point is still wrong. Do not change the subject.


--------------------
Bush Apologists of America (BAA): pulling the wool over America's eyes since 1980.

You mentioned an 80% tax rate is too much. What do you think the maximum tax rate should be?
 
Sadly none of you understand the real economic ramifications of a high National Debt. They are almost nil. It is a non issue in many eyes because that is just what it is.

Now to be fair to Reagan and Bush, Reagan had to finish off the Cold War - to do so he had to outspend and outproduce the USSR. For Bush, he had to deal with Trillions in losses post 911, then fight two wars. Considering this, we are actually in a real good debt position.

Also, think of this. The most lagging of all indicators is debt reduction. It is no mystery tat tax cuts spur economic development (there has been a 100% success rate), which in turn increases tax rolls. Every additional dollar that a business makes is taxable, so if the economy skyrockets by 20%, you can expect tax income to rise by a similar amount. Add in new businesses, personal wealth adjustments, and consumer spending and overall tax rolls take a major jump. The downer, they usually follow about five to ten years behind the actual cut.

Tax increases cannot say the same thing. They front load all of the increases for an immediate boost (note Clinton) while forgoing the long term success of the economy. Look at Europe they use this methodology. At a certain point taxable income in maximized, the result - Europe. High social costs (since there is not enough free cash for people to provide for themselves), high unemployment (since companies cannot afford to hire), and large levels of government subsidies to both individules and corporations. Tax increases are a vicous circle with no long term benefits ever proven. Just look at the Clinton years, and the Carter years, almost four years after tax increases the economy begins to tank. Increasing taxes again at this point would work, but it would just prolong the collaps four to six more years. It is a band aid, not a solution.


And that is your daily economics report for those that do not know economics.
 
Originally posted by: irwincur
Sadly none of you understand the real economic ramifications of a high National Debt. They are almost nil. It is a non issue in many eyes because that is just what it is.

Now to be fair to Reagan and Bush, Reagan had to finish off the Cold War - to do so he had to outspend and outproduce the USSR. For Bush, he had to deal with Trillions in losses post 911, then fight two wars. Considering this, we are actually in a real good debt position.

Also, think of this. The most lagging of all indicators is debt reduction. It is no mystery tat tax cuts spur economic development (there has been a 100% success rate), which in turn increases tax rolls. Every additional dollar that a business makes is taxable, so if the economy skyrockets by 20%, you can expect tax income to rise by a similar amount. Add in new businesses, personal wealth adjustments, and consumer spending and overall tax rolls take a major jump. The downer, they usually follow about five to ten years behind the actual cut.

Tax increases cannot say the same thing. They front load all of the increases for an immediate boost (note Clinton) while forgoing the long term success of the economy. Look at Europe they use this methodology. At a certain point taxable income in maximized, the result - Europe. High social costs (since there is not enough free cash for people to provide for themselves), high unemployment (since companies cannot afford to hire), and large levels of government subsidies to both individules and corporations. Tax increases are a vicous circle with no long term benefits ever proven. Just look at the Clinton years, and the Carter years, almost four years after tax increases the economy begins to tank. Increasing taxes again at this point would work, but it would just prolong the collaps four to six more years. It is a band aid, not a solution.


And that is your daily economics report for those that do not know economics.

Congratulations I'll be sure to print this one out on a napkin so I can read it again at lunch. Good to know everything is so well in hand; it still shocks me everytime someone says "Reagan proved deficits don't matter" and it turns out they aren't joking!

Now try finding an econ professor who thinks the economy is 1/10th as simple as you apparently do.

Tax increases and decreases have different effects depending on the total level of taxation. Taxes can be too high, and they can be too low. They can also be too progressive, and not progressive enough. The system is also too fvcking big and too complicated to model in such a simple manner.
 
PETERSON (PETER PETERSON, FORMER COMMERCE SECRETARY): I have nothing against tax cuts, as long as we reduce spending. But what?s going on, Chris, is my party, the Republican Party, used to be known as the party of fiscal responsibility. Now we seem to be governed by a philosophy, or I should say a theology, of any tax cut, any time. And they?ve been joined by Republicans who?ve joined the spending binge. And this isn?t Pete Peterson saying it, it?s the CATO Institute, who refers to the spending explosion. It?s Dick Armey, a very conservative majority leader whom you used to interview, who pointed out that he can?t pin this one on the Democrats because they?re in charge of everything.

PETERSON: No, what I am saying is that when George Bush?George W. Bush took over, not just Pete Peterson but Bob Rubin, Paul Volcker, Sam Nunn, Warren Rudman, Bob Kerrey and I got together and said, This economy is kind of soft. What should happen? Well, we believe, A, you can justify a tax cut. B, it ought to be temporary. C, it should go to people that are going to spend it. And four, and for God?s sakes, don?t worsen the long-term situation. This particular brew of tax cuts did not, in my opinion, meet any of those requirements.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5465756/

Someone on the right who makes sense.
 
Originally posted by: Todd33
PETERSON (PETER PETERSON, FORMER COMMERCE SECRETARY): I have nothing against tax cuts, as long as we reduce spending. But what?s going on, Chris, is my party, the Republican Party, used to be known as the party of fiscal responsibility. Now we seem to be governed by a philosophy, or I should say a theology, of any tax cut, any time. And they?ve been joined by Republicans who?ve joined the spending binge. And this isn?t Pete Peterson saying it, it?s the CATO Institute, who refers to the spending explosion. It?s Dick Armey, a very conservative majority leader whom you used to interview, who pointed out that he can?t pin this one on the Democrats because they?re in charge of everything.

PETERSON: No, what I am saying is that when George Bush?George W. Bush took over, not just Pete Peterson but Bob Rubin, Paul Volcker, Sam Nunn, Warren Rudman, Bob Kerrey and I got together and said, This economy is kind of soft. What should happen? Well, we believe, A, you can justify a tax cut. B, it ought to be temporary. C, it should go to people that are going to spend it. And four, and for God?s sakes, don?t worsen the long-term situation. This particular brew of tax cuts did not, in my opinion, meet any of those requirements.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5465756/

Someone on the right who makes sense.
Greenspan seems to think otherwise, and I'd take the CURRENT Fed Reserve Chairman over the FORMER commerce secretary;

Fed chairman says Bush tax cuts prevented severe recession
 
Did he say that the spending spree they are on is good? Did he say the cuts should be permanent? You are missing the point.

Greenspan also has the habit of blowing in the political wind. He rallied for the Clinton tax increase.
 
Originally posted by: Todd33
Did he say that the spending spree they are on is good? Did he say the cuts should be permanent? You are missing the point.

Greenspan also has the habit of blowing in the political wind. He rallied for the Clinton tax increase.
Clinton was lucky, he was in a Bull market, extra spending wasnt required. However, after his bubble burst, tax refunds and increased spending were required economic stimulus. Once we reach a bull market again, then the Fed can worry about paying off the debt. (which Greenspan also mentioned in his recent trips to congress)
 
Originally posted by: Todd33
Did he say that the spending spree they are on is good? Did he say the cuts should be permanent? You are missing the point.

Greenspan also has the habit of blowing in the political wind. He rallied for the Clinton tax increase.

Greenspan doesn't want to upset the markets by vehemently arguing against the administration. It was that type of mindset that caused O'Neill's eventual firing and also disrupted the markets a couple of times on comments O'Neill made.
 
Back
Top