Since most people view children and immediate family as an extension of self, I'm not sure your analogy holds true.
Since most people view children and immediate family as an extension of self, I'm not sure your analogy holds true.
cKGunslinger
Lifer
- Nov 29, 1999
- 16,408
- 57
- 91
The usual propaganda... they cry about tax cuts helping only the rich and cry about not having enough assistance to the poor. Unfortunately, these are crocodile tears. Their basic assumption is rich people are evil because they make money, and government is good because it takes away a lot of it. They won't say it like that... they'll groan about promoting equality by redistributing wealth, but screw the semantics, it's just an economic extension of the self-hating ways.
Yeah, their class envy/dividing tactic works so well when the bottom 50% of all income earners pay less than 5% of the taxes. Jeez.
We owe the rich a lot for supporting the government and helping society... we essentially ride the backs of these people, publicly and privately.
Yeah, their class envy/dividing tactic works so well when the bottom 50% of all income earners pay less than 5% of the taxes. Jeez.
We owe the rich a lot for supporting the government and helping society... we essentially ride the backs of these people, publicly and privately.
Very good point, cw. The top 50% of wage earners pay 96.09% of all income taxes. Whereas the bottom 50% pay 3.91%. Yet, when taxes are cut, libs think it should go to the bottom 50%. I don't get it.
Because the tax cuts affect the bottom 50%'s status of living a lot more than they do the top 10%'s.
what a ridiculous statement. You're saying conservatives dont pay their taxes? Talk about ignorance...
What a ridiculous misinterpretation.
He's saying conservatives (Republicans in control of the House, the Senate, and the White House) refused to rollback the tax cuts to pay for the war on Iraq. Instead, they chose to go to war via deficit spending.
And the Bush administration has slid millions of people into the income tax free zone with new regulations. Obiously, if the bottom 50% pay 4% of taxes, they can't receive a whole lot in tax cuts.
Something people should look at is, what will the people so with the money they get to keep? Give a 15% tax cut to a guy who makes $25,000 a year, and he's going to say "Thank god, I'm going to take this $250 and buy me more food so I don't starve." Right?
Give a 5% tax cut to the guy who makes $1,000,000 a year and what's he going to do? He'll take that $8,000 and spend it and invest it creating jobs and wealth for everyone. Which situation is helping society more?
The Left usually oppose tax cuts and advocate higher taxes for the rich because they are convinced that "the rich get richer while the poor get poorer". But this is a typical mantra- and a total lie. In 1980, if someone earned $55,000 ($75,000 today) he was in the top 5% of earners. But today the top 5% earners make over $155,000. This means a lot of people who were middle or lower class moved up. Another thing we can look at is in 1980 there were 600,000 families worth over $1 million... today that number is about 5 million families.
The most impressive aspect about this was the wealth was self-created. Before people mainly got rich by choosing their parents carefully, but not in America today- about 80% of millionaires are entirely self-made. My point is that a capitalistic system expands opportunity and went from creating the first middle class in the world to first mass affluent class in the world, a spectacular achievement.
Give a 5% tax cut to the guy who makes $1,000,000 a year and what's he going to do? He'll take that $8,000 and spend it and invest it creating jobs and wealth for everyone. Which situation is helping society more?
The Left usually oppose tax cuts and advocate higher taxes for the rich because they are convinced that "the rich get richer while the poor get poorer". But this is a typical mantra- and a total lie. In 1980, if someone earned $55,000 ($75,000 today) he was in the top 5% of earners. But today the top 5% earners make over $155,000. This means a lot of people who were middle or lower class moved up. Another thing we can look at is in 1980 there were 600,000 families worth over $1 million... today that number is about 5 million families.
The most impressive aspect about this was the wealth was self-created. Before people mainly got rich by choosing their parents carefully, but not in America today- about 80% of millionaires are entirely self-made. My point is that a capitalistic system expands opportunity and went from creating the first middle class in the world to first mass affluent class in the world, a spectacular achievement.
You have a rather optimistic view of the rich, cwjerome. My take would be that person making $1 million/yr will take that extra $8k and add it to his portfolio. He'll get richer and not much else will happen.
cKGunslinger
Lifer
- Nov 29, 1999
- 16,408
- 57
- 91
What do you mean "add it to his portfolio?" You mean invest it in stocks, which in turn gives fund to business, which in turn encourages growth, which means expansion, which means hiring, which means jobs, which means lower unemployment, which means less taxes need for social welfare, which means lowered taxes for people...
Wait, why is this bad again?
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
What do you mean "add it to his portfolio?" You mean invest it in stocks, which in turn gives fund to business, which in turn encourages growth, which means expansion, which means hiring, which means jobs, which means lower unemployment, which means less taxes need for social welfare, which means lowered taxes for people...
Wait, why is this bad again?
Pwned.
Originally posted by: lordtyranus
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
What do you mean "add it to his portfolio?" You mean invest it in stocks, which in turn gives fund to business, which in turn encourages growth, which means expansion, which means hiring, which means jobs, which means lower unemployment, which means less taxes need for social welfare, which means lowered taxes for people...
Wait, why is this bad again?
Pwned.
Yes, when I read conjur's post, my blood started boiling, as I had the same response as cK ready to burst out. The whole premise of trickle down is the expectation that the rich WILL invest that extra money in their portfolio, which in turn puts the money back into the economy. Essentially, it's their greed to want that money to grow that assures us they will use it wisely. The worst thing would be for them to keep the cash under their matress. But more than likely, they're going to spend it on something lavish (money in the ecomony, plus luxury tax), or invest in a company.
One larger economic spark has a greater effect than the sum of many smaller ones. The same way a 1-carat diamond is worth more than a hundred 1-point diamonds. It's the same total weight, why wouldn't it be the same value?
It's the liberals' perspective that everything is all or nothing. They can't conceptualize a win/win situation. Yes, it is possible for someone to give the money back to the economy to spark growth, and still make a profit individually too. That's what's so great about capitalism!
Agreed, it's not a zero sum game, and as history (and logic) has proven, lowering tax rates can actually increase revenue.
Engineer
Elite Member
- Oct 9, 1999
- 39,230
- 701
- 126
LOL...unless they are buying into an initial public offering or purchasing stock directly from the company, all they are doing is buying stock from another stockholder. I would guarantee that people like me (Middle class) will spend it all (and then some)....therefore putting the money into shops, creating the need for new merchadise (hopefully, creating American jobs). I would doubt that many millionaires would spend a cent more than they normally do. Investing in stocks and funds do very little....investing in the heart of America does!
Oh, and there will be a point that the deficit is so high that it brings this country to its knees......
The trickle down theory is like a bucket with a pinhole in it......somebody pours the whole thing full and you might get a few drops out over time....but not enough to fill the tub!
Engineer
Elite Member
- Oct 9, 1999
- 39,230
- 701
- 126
Yes. The initial message mentioned "stocks". Nothing of Bonds. Again, many bonds are "traded" and are not new. Hence when the price of bonds go up, the yeild goes down because they have a fixed maturity value over time. Unless they are NEW bonds (not US Savings Bonds either), they are nothing but TRADED equities.
Engineer, even if he buys stock from another person, wealth is created, and when wealth is created more can be made, and as this process continues people and businesses spend the money on good, expansion, jobs, etc. What a ludicrous idea that all they money being made, spent, and invested as no virtually no effect on poorer people.
Every time a company makes a fat profit, and another millionaire is made, the little people like me should cheer. It helps us all.
Every time a company makes a fat profit, and another millionaire is made, the little people like me should cheer. It helps us all.
Engineer
Elite Member
- Oct 9, 1999
- 39,230
- 701
- 126
Cheer? Stockholders are greedy by nature. NO Guarantee of wealth from selling stock (just ask stock traders over the last few years). The only guarantee of money are the stock brokerages from their fees. Anyone really think a millionaire is going to put more of a tax refund to work than the middle class? If you are poor (as you say), you'll put all of that money right back into the economy.
Not to mention if someone does buy stock and holds it for 10 years, does that really trickle down?
The only company to make a fat profit from the sale of stock are the brokerages.
As my bosse's boss told us...."We are not here to create jobs. We're here to create stockholder value". GREED. They could care less about the everyday people....other than to get them OFF their payrolls for cheaper labor (or autmation)!!!
And not to mention the deficit....which drives up interest rates....and hurts all of us poor people who owe and purchase items on credit. The deficit will be a major blow to this country in the future.....
I guess I should clarify my position on this: I'm not against TAX cuts....I'm against the reckless spending and deficits by our governement. If they can BALANCE the budget with TAX CUTS, fine. If not, they curtail the darn pork projects. I hate debt...both personal and by OUR governement. The only difference is that I can file bankruptcy.....the US government CAN'T!
Stockholders are greedy by nature, heh, very insightful. Half of all stock is owned by people like me.
If anyone has a 401k or anything else like that, yeah, long term investments do help everyone, because they do a lot better. Ask a retired person if they are greedy, and while you're at it tell them the stock market doesn't trickle down. More than half of all taxable dividends go to seniors, many of whom are on a fixed income. More activity (hcause in part by tax breaks) will encourage and promote consumer spending and business investment that will lead to economic growth and job creation.
Of course there is no guarentee of wealth from selling stock (great non-point) but the buying and selling of stock does create wealth over time.
If you want to talk about greed, look at yourself. People like you demand the rich people's money because... why because THEY earned it! A lot of people will look at their own budgets and see some rich guy thinking just one of his wife's necklaces could solve all their problems. They have no idea that if all the "luxuries" of the rich were expropriated, it would not feed their family- and millions of other families- for two months; and that the entire country would starve on the first morning of the month to follow... how will they know it, if all the voices are saying we should soak the rich?
No one tells them that super high taxes on the rich will come out of their investment capital and savings and this will mean less production, fewer jobs, and higher prices... and that by the time the rich have to lower their standard of living, OURS will be gone, along with our savings and job. Some people need to get off the envy and wise up.
If anyone has a 401k or anything else like that, yeah, long term investments do help everyone, because they do a lot better. Ask a retired person if they are greedy, and while you're at it tell them the stock market doesn't trickle down. More than half of all taxable dividends go to seniors, many of whom are on a fixed income. More activity (hcause in part by tax breaks) will encourage and promote consumer spending and business investment that will lead to economic growth and job creation.
Of course there is no guarentee of wealth from selling stock (great non-point) but the buying and selling of stock does create wealth over time.
If you want to talk about greed, look at yourself. People like you demand the rich people's money because... why because THEY earned it! A lot of people will look at their own budgets and see some rich guy thinking just one of his wife's necklaces could solve all their problems. They have no idea that if all the "luxuries" of the rich were expropriated, it would not feed their family- and millions of other families- for two months; and that the entire country would starve on the first morning of the month to follow... how will they know it, if all the voices are saying we should soak the rich?
No one tells them that super high taxes on the rich will come out of their investment capital and savings and this will mean less production, fewer jobs, and higher prices... and that by the time the rich have to lower their standard of living, OURS will be gone, along with our savings and job. Some people need to get off the envy and wise up.
"We are not here to create jobs. We're here to create stockholder value"
Bingo. Not only that but you can bet that poor folks aren't holding 100 shares of Dell stock
Bingo. Not only that but you can bet that poor folks aren't holding 100 shares of Dell stock
Engineer
Elite Member
- Oct 9, 1999
- 39,230
- 701
- 126
Read my position above on TAX CUTS before you start spouting crap about my position. I am against BIG GOVERNMENT (including the big brother state that we seem to be entering), I hate TAXES but I also realize that somebody has to pay for all of this crap. Before you think people like me....read!!! If the mommy and daddy would cut off the credit card to the government, then maybe they would spend within their means.
P.S. I own a 401k also.....if I place that extra 1000 dollars in there for the next 30 years before I retire, does it help the economy over the next 29?
I bet if you give 1 billion to the middle class and 1 billion to the rich, the 1 billion to the middle class would end up throughout the economy much faster than the rich!!! (It may go to Walmart......instead of Schwab)
Your point? They aren't supposed to care about their employees. Stockholders ARE everyday people btw. At least intelligent everyday people.
I agree with you here. I don't agree with John Kerry's unfair plan of rolling back taxes only for citizens who make more money than he does.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter