the Democrats and Warren Buffet dont have basic math skills.

[drebo]

Show me where Obama claims raising taxes only on billionaires will close the deficit. In fact, show me where Obama suggests raising taxes only on billionaires, period.

You could have tax rates at or near 100% for all working adults in the US and the budget deficit still wouldn't be closed.

 

[dank69]

You could have tax rates at or near 100% for all working adults in the US and the budget deficit still wouldn't be closed.

However, if tax rates had never been lowered in the first place, the deficit would have never grown out of control. In other words, on behalf of all liberals, we told you so.

 

[Anarchist420]

Boy, that's an extreme oversimplification of the issue at hand that only looks at one small aspect of it. It just shows how little you actually understand what's going on, especially since you seem so proud of the fact that you can do basic math. The issue is much larger and more complicated than this by far. Also, most reasonable economists and Democrats have openly stated additional taxes on wealthy individuals might add 2% revenue or so without being prompted prior as if they were trying to hide that fact. It's just one teeny-tiny piece in a connected web of all sorts of shit that most have trouble comprehending, so Republicans act like this one often-recognized point is some sort of "Gotcha!" when anyone intelligent recognizes it for what it is and can start to connect it with other information for a better understanding of the issue as a whole.

you're probably right but the conservatives on wall street dont find him very funny... he is very future minded and it is kind of cute, and it may or may not reduce the gini coefficient, but supporting theft and encouraging it isnt cool. remember that obama changed his name to barry soetoro and registered as a foreign student to get into columbia so hes just fucking joking with us. probably the biggest prankster president ever.

in other words, you could tell what was going on with romney but obama is too intellectually dynamic for most people to always have any idea whatsoever as to what hes thinking other than that he believes govt's role is to perfect humanity (or at least lead to the perfection of humanity).

 

[Matt1970]

However, if tax rates had never been lowered in the first place, the deficit would have never grown out of control. In other words, on behalf of all liberals, we told you so.

Just like when Obama made the Bush tax cuts permanent?

 

[dank69]

Just like when Obama made the Bush tax cuts permanent?

In exchange for what? The only way for Democrats to be allowed to fix things is by allowing the GOP to break things a little more. That's compromise for you.

 

[Matt1970]

Duh-version, huh?

Of course. You do have a bit of a point, even if its true meaning escapes you. You discount both leadership & power as if they don't matter. I'll agree that the powerful have led the citizenry to believe and act against their own interests, no doubt.

OTOH, what you believe exemplifies the successful results of those efforts.

So I have a point but I don't know what I am talking about and you think the powerful have led the citizenry to believe and act against their own interests? Yep, they forced people to shop in Walmart, buy import cars and just basicly screw themselves.

 

[Matt1970]

In exchange for what? The only way for Democrats to be allowed to fix things is by allowing the GOP to break things a little more. That's compromise for you.

I hope you wash your foot before you stick it in your mouth.

 

[Anarchist420]

Just like when Obama made the Bush tax cuts permanent?

you dont really care if people are dependent on the govt do you?

if a single person making 60k this year paid the clinton rates, had their salaries adjusted for inflation, paid the clinton rates for 10 more years on top of all the other taxes they pay (even for every time they take a dump in some counties), then they will be more likely to come to the govt if they get laid off or even when they retire.

and it makes it all that much worse for productive people when the govt wants and makes enemies then forces productive people to pay for that.

even if they're used for defense only (they're actually not, but im being hypothetical here), a standing army would only save people like maybe once every 100 years and even then the standing army wouldnt save more than a net of more than 70% of the lives in the invaded nation with a standing army. and then it could also have a net loss of 70%. no good reason to have a standing military.

in other words, it is shitty wasteful to piss away so much on having the "world's strongest military" when it doesnt last forever (nationalists fail to realize that nothing lasts forever) and then still not being guaranteed any safety from it.

 

[Jhhnn]

You could have tax rates at or near 100% for all working adults in the US and the budget deficit still wouldn't be closed.

Bullshit. Personal AGI for 2012 was nearly $8T-

http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-individual-income-tax-data-0

Current deficits aren't 10% of that.

 

[Naeeldar]

you dont really care if people are dependent on the govt do you?

if a single person making 60k this year paid the clinton rates, had their salaries adjusted for inflation, paid the clinton rates for 10 more years on top of all the other taxes they pay (even for every time they take a dump in some counties), then they will be more likely to come to the govt if they get laid off or even when they retire.

and it makes it all that much worse for productive people when the govt wants and makes enemies then forces productive people to pay for that.

even if they're used for defense only (they're actually not, but im being hypothetical here), a standing army would only save people like maybe once every 100 years and even then the standing army wouldnt save more than a net of more than 70% of the lives in the invaded nation with a standing army. and then it could also have a net loss of 70%. no good reason to have a standing military.

in other words, it is shitty wasteful to piss away so much on having the "world's strongest military" when it doesnt last forever (nationalists fail to realize that nothing lasts forever) and then still not being guaranteed any safety from it.

Disband the army and how many people are suddenly on unemployment? Not exactly a great solution either. Especially when you consider how many industries would be impacted.

 

[kage69]

Warrent Buffet certainly seems to be held back by not understanding basic math. Just like that idiot Einstein.

 

[Anarchist420]

Bullshit. Personal AGI for 2012 was nearly $8T- http://taxfoundation.org/article/sum...ome-tax-data-0 Current deficits aren't 10% of that.

that's without deductions and a lot of that 8Tn was from people making well less than 1mn. and tacking the 39.6% bracket on has not yielded the irs more than an additional $50Bn this year.

if congress just raise taxes, then the Executive State will just spend disproportionately more.

 

[Born2bwire]

Warrent Buffet certainly seems to be held back by not understanding basic math. Just like that idiot Einstein.

He'll never amount to anything!

 

[NoStateofMind]

if congress just raise taxes, then the Executive State will just spend disproportionately more.

Blasphemy!

 

[JEDIYoda]

i decided it wasnt worth a vacation and i'm no fatacat

aww c`mon...you could always hitch hike to Mexico. catch a few rays and a Corona......while sitting on the beach......

 

[drebo]

However, if tax rates had never been lowered in the first place, the deficit would have never grown out of control. In other words, on behalf of all liberals, we told you so.

Wait...what?

The government has already shown it is incapable of spending within its means. Whether the tax rate is 5% or 50%, that isn't going to change.

 

[Jhhnn]

that's without deductions and a lot of that 8Tn was from people making well less than 1mn. and tacking the 39.6% bracket on has not yielded the irs more than an additional $50Bn this year.

if congress just raise taxes, then the Executive State will just spend disproportionately more.

AGI is adjusted gross income, after deductions & exclusions.

Your original statement is still bullshit, $8T taxable personal income vs <$1T deficit.

 

[Anarchist420]

AGI is adjusted gross income, after deductions & exclusions.

agi is not taxable income. taxable income is agi minus deductions.

Your original statement is still bullshit, $8T taxable personal income vs <$1T deficit.

i dont see how doubling the top marginal rate would come anywhere close to doubling the revenue.

why do EU govts have VATs too if income tax was enough to fund their shit?

 

[Bowfinger]

AGI is adjusted gross income, after deductions & exclusions.

Your original statement is still bullshit, $8T taxable personal income vs <$1T deficit.

That was Drebo who claimed 100% tax wouldn't close the deficit, not A420.

 

[Anarchist420]

That was Drebo who claimed 100% tax wouldn't close the deficit, not A420.

i think he is right though because fewer people would work if they didnt get any return and the govt would just spend more.

i also dont know why left-authoritarians are okay with the govt basically legislating a maximum income.

 

[fskimospy]

You could have tax rates at or near 100% for all working adults in the US and the budget deficit still wouldn't be closed.

Yeah, that's complete bullshit.

 

[rudder]

What regulations would those be?

Do some reading....

http://bachus.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1398
http://www.sensibleregulations.org/
http://www.nahb.org/news_details.aspx?newsID=15823
http://www.washingtonpolicy.org/blog/post/regulatory-burden-small-businesses-increasing
http://www.heritage.org/research/te...strative-burdens-on-americas-small-businesses


There are a lot of companies that cannot exist today because starting one from scratch would take a tremendous amount of capital just to navigate all the local, state and federal regulations. Regulations that large corporations can easily afford a whole legal department to study and make sure they are in compliance. And of course, if they are not... they have the money to purchase a senator or two.

Every bought moonshine from a liquor store? It tastes like crap. That is my brief lesson in burdensome regulations.

 

[dank69]

i think he is right though because fewer people would work if they didnt get any return and the govt would just spend more.

i also dont know why left-authoritarians are okay with the govt basically legislating a maximum income.

I don't know anybody that is okay with legislating a maximum income. Saying "you make more, you pay more" isn't the same thing as saying "once you make x, everything in addition to x goes to taxes." Nobody is proposing 100% tax rates for any bracket, so pretending that people are proposing that is nothing more than a straw man argument.

 

[Anarchist420]

I don't know anybody that is okay with legislating a maximum income. Saying "you make more, you pay more" isn't the same thing as saying "once you make x, everything in addition to x goes to taxes." Nobody is proposing 100% tax rates for any bracket, so pretending that people are proposing that is nothing more than a straw man argument.

what about going back to 70% as the top marginal rate? is that likely to close the deficit? there are too many variables, but i think it is not right to believe that raising the top marginal rate even higher than it is now would reduce the deficit.

 

[dank69]

what about going back to 70% as the top marginal rate? is that likely to close the deficit? there are too many variables, but i think it is not right to believe that raising the top marginal rate even higher than it is now would reduce the deficit.

Cap gains need to go up as well, but using your 70% as an example, the only way it wouldn't lead to a lower deficit is if you believe that most people will choose to earn $0.00/$1.00 rather than $0.30/$1.00.