Politicians Lying to the public

[Snorri1234]

Reagan kinda saw things more realistically.

Wait...which Reagan are you talking about? Surely you don't mean the 40th president of the USA, right?

[jimboston]

Small businesses get to keep the tax incentives, and he's working to give them more incentives, like the gov't paying 100% for a short while, for single parents and the elderly to get employment... the businesses that hire them are getting their full salary reimbursed. It's true, I know a few ppl who've gotten work that way in recent weeks.

OMG... do you actually believe what you typed?

Why should I pay taxes so a private business can hire somebody?

Why not instead let me spend my money on things I want and need... then the businesses will need to hire people to make what I want or service me. No that's "just dumb"... that "never works"... of course it does... it is the basis for the entire economy.

What you describe here is 100% socialism. It has failed. It failed as communism in USSR and it is failing in Europe.

[bedub1]

My state has a tax on business's that is based upon the GROSS RECEIPTS. This means if you buy $1million worth of product and sell it for $900,000, and loose $100,000, then you owe taxes on $900,000. It's fucking retarded.

[bedub1]

Trickle-down economics is bullshit.

This is incorrect. Trickle-down economics is nothing more than a complete understanding of the flow of money.

[BigBallinStalin]

A rarg rarg rarg. Gelly be lou, zep naa hane wante. Dleh dleh dleh dleh...

[Snorri1234]

Trickle-down economics is bullshit.

This is incorrect. Trickle-down economics is nothing more than a complete understanding of the flow of money.

No it's bullshit. Both in theory and practice. Why do you think no other western nation bases their economic policies on such an idea? Because it doesn't work.

[natty dread]

.....and make them eat the banana afterwards.

[rockfist]

No wonder why you don't live in the real world. A poor economy already means that most businesses aren't doing well. Adding more taxes on the businesses cuts off even more of their profits, which means they have to start cutting costs (jobs) to stay afloat. Adding more taxes to individuals mean even less money for the people to spend on goods and services, so the economy stays poor.

Which is why some countries run their corporate tax on profits only. So there's no reason to cut jobs.

You have obviously never studied accounting. Any company in the trades choosing the completed contract method of tax accounting will record taxable profits long after a downturn begins and thus owe taxes when it is losing money.

[bedub1]

Raising taxes on the very rich really isn't bad for the economy. Money needs to be circulated, and if you're rich a lot of your money doesn't circulate enough.


Honestly, the only way you can be against taxes on rich people during poor times is if you believe the government simply burns the money they get.

Honestly, the only way you can be for taxes on rich people during any times is if you believe the rich people simply bury their money and don't circulate it.

[spurgistan]

Raising taxes on the very rich really isn't bad for the economy. Money needs to be circulated, and if you're rich a lot of your money doesn't circulate enough.


Honestly, the only way you can be against taxes on rich people during poor times is if you believe the government simply burns the money they get.

Honestly, the only way you can be for taxes on rich people during any times is if you believe the rich people simply bury their money and don't circulate it.

Explain how the fact that the share of capital held by the richest 1%, 5%, and 10% of the population has risen dramatically and constantly over the last 30 years if the gloriously wealthy have been successfully circulating their money.

[Doc_Brown]

Explain how the fact that the share of capital held by the richest 1%, 5%, and 10% of the population has risen dramatically and constantly over the last 30 years if the gloriously wealthy have been successfully circulating their money.

That's easy to explain. First, for the most part, people are going to use the largest part of their money in a way that either brings them more money of gives them some added value. Someone that brings home $1million per year isn't just going to decide he only uses $100K to live on and therefore donate the other $900K to charities of various sorts. He may will give $100K-200K away to charities, but he'll likely invest $500K and use the other $200K for enjoyment/causes/etc...

Setting that aside, let's take two hypothetical people. One makes $50K per year and the other makes $450K per year (after taxes in both cases to make this easier). If he's lucky the $50K guy can invest somewhere around $5K per year. Assuming he puts his contributions in monthly and averages about 10% returns per year, he'll have about $90K invested after 10 years for a total wealth accumulation of $540K (wages plus investment income).

They guy making $450K can realistically live on $250K (even with an extravagant lifestyle) and invest $200K per year. Using the same investment strategy as the $50K guy, he'll have $3.4M invested after 10 years, for a total accumulation of $5.9M. Which means that even though the $50K guy was earning 10% of the total, he ended up with 8.4% of the total wealth accumulation. Or, if you take living expenses out, he ends up with 1.5% of the total available funds after 10 years.

It gets worse when you realize that the $450K guy isn't necessarily just going to invest in 10% growth mutual funds. He has the cash to buy chunks of real estate, build businesses, and pay high-performing brokers to get him a return much higher than 10%. On the other hand, he's pumping nearly half his income into business ventures, which will be used to hire more people, acquire capital equipment, and generally support the economy.

What happens if you try to set up penalties so that he is unable to end up with more than 90% of the total after 10 years? That's accomplished by investing only $45K per year and following the same strategy as the guy that invests $5K per year. The other $155K he'll try to hide using whatever loophole he can. It will either be in terms of buying items that have intrinsic value (especially if it appreciates over times - say real estate or precious metals) or by sending it overseas into some venture that will allow him to get his higher rate of return in the long run. What you get is a lot less money pumped directly into the economy.

That top 1% also pay something like 95% of all taxes (a significantly larger share of the taxes than their share of the total wealth). It's simply that because they have more available funds, they can access better wealth-building tools than the lower income earners. Maybe it's not "fair," but there's no way to legislate or enforce "fairness" since the very idea has no objective standard. It's also not fair that someone else is smarter, prettier, stronger, has better parents, or has any other advantage that you or I don't!

[bedub1]

[Snorri1234]

I'm still confused as to why all these european countries with far higher taxes manage to do so well. Surely all this tax would be damaging their economy like crazy right?

[72o]

Explain how the fact that the share of capital held by the richest 1%, 5%, and 10% of the population has risen dramatically and constantly over the last 30 years if the gloriously wealthy have been successfully circulating their money.

That's easy to explain. First, for the most part, people are going to use the largest part of their money in a way that either brings them more money of gives them some added value. Someone that brings home $1million per year isn't just going to decide he only uses $100K to live on and therefore donate the other $900K to charities of various sorts. He may will give $100K-200K away to charities, but he'll likely invest $500K and use the other $200K for enjoyment/causes/etc...

Setting that aside, let's take two hypothetical people. One makes $50K per year and the other makes $450K per year (after taxes in both cases to make this easier). If he's lucky the $50K guy can invest somewhere around $5K per year. Assuming he puts his contributions in monthly and averages about 10% returns per year, he'll have about $90K invested after 10 years for a total wealth accumulation of $540K (wages plus investment income).

They guy making $450K can realistically live on $250K (even with an extravagant lifestyle) and invest $200K per year. Using the same investment strategy as the $50K guy, he'll have $3.4M invested after 10 years, for a total accumulation of $5.9M. Which means that even though the $50K guy was earning 10% of the total, he ended up with 8.4% of the total wealth accumulation. Or, if you take living expenses out, he ends up with 1.5% of the total available funds after 10 years.

It gets worse when you realize that the $450K guy isn't necessarily just going to invest in 10% growth mutual funds. He has the cash to buy chunks of real estate, build businesses, and pay high-performing brokers to get him a return much higher than 10%. On the other hand, he's pumping nearly half his income into business ventures, which will be used to hire more people, acquire capital equipment, and generally support the economy.

What happens if you try to set up penalties so that he is unable to end up with more than 90% of the total after 10 years? That's accomplished by investing only $45K per year and following the same strategy as the guy that invests $5K per year. The other $155K he'll try to hide using whatever loophole he can. It will either be in terms of buying items that have intrinsic value (especially if it appreciates over times - say real estate or precious metals) or by sending it overseas into some venture that will allow him to get his higher rate of return in the long run. What you get is a lot less money pumped directly into the economy.

That top 1% also pay something like 95% of all taxes (a significantly larger share of the taxes than their share of the total wealth). It's simply that because they have more available funds, they can access better wealth-building tools than the lower income earners. Maybe it's not "fair," but there's no way to legislate or enforce "fairness" since the very idea has no objective standard. It's also not fair that someone else is smarter, prettier, stronger, has better parents, or has any other advantage that you or I don't!

But Snorri doesn't accept that it shouldn't be changed. Just because someone is more successful, for whatever reason, doesn't mean they should benefit more than the fat lazy bastards that leech off of the economy. The fact that Megan Fox is hot as f*ck, and makes millions of dollars a year by simply being hot as f*ck, is unfair. She should be taxed at 99.9%, so that that inequality is balanced out by Barack Hussein Obama (mmm mmm mmm) and his benevolence.

I mean, it was already said, earlier in the thread, that the only way to save a crippled economy is for the government to spend money. I mean, it's not like they burn it, right?

[Snorri1234]

I mean, it was already said, earlier in the thread, that the only way to save a crippled economy is for the government to spend money. I mean, it's not like they burn it, right?

Well....some people obviously think they do. Otherwise you'd have to come down on the government being better at putting money in the economy for the basic fact they don't save. People save. Rich people don't put all of their money into the economy. The government has no problem with spending all of their money.


So if money spend no matter what means "better economy" then obviously the solution is to give more money to the government.

[Doc_Brown]

Don't close the money hole!
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/i ... government

[Doc_Brown]

Well....some people obviously think they do. Otherwise you'd have to come down on the government being better at putting money in the economy for the basic fact they don't save. People save. Rich people don't put all of their money into the economy. The government has no problem with spending all of their money.


So if money spend no matter what means "better economy" then obviously the solution is to give more money to the government.

What do you think banks do with the money you "save?" The loan out just about every penny of it. There is a small reduction based on the required reserve rate (which Greenspan essentially dropped to zero), but money, whether saved, invested, spent, or given to the government in the form of taxes, goes right into the economy. In fact, every dollar you spend gets multiplied 10, 50, even 100 times over in the form of credit expansion. There are two things you can do with your money to keep it from going straight into supporting the credit bubble... uh... I mean the economy. You can pay off debt, or you can lock cash in a safe. Of course, if overseas investments offer much better tax havens than your country of residence, you may be sending your money into a foreign economy rather than a local one.

[thegreekdog]

I mean, it was already said, earlier in the thread, that the only way to save a crippled economy is for the government to spend money. I mean, it's not like they burn it, right?

Well....some people obviously think they do. Otherwise you'd have to come down on the government being better at putting money in the economy for the basic fact they don't save. People save. Rich people don't put all of their money into the economy. The government has no problem with spending all of their money.


So if money spend no matter what means "better economy" then obviously the solution is to give more money to the government.

I think what the good Doc Brown is saying is that "saving" money means that the money is put back into the economy.

According to the White House (I used this to avoid bias complaints... I've seen higher estimates elsewhere), $92,000 of government spending creates one job-year. In other words, for every $92,000 the government spends, one job is created for one year. My question and my issue with the American Recovery Act is whether that $92,000 would be put to better use in the hands of a private company that might be able to create more jobs with that $92,000.

[Phatscotty]

I mean, it was already said, earlier in the thread, that the only way to save a crippled economy is for the government to spend money. I mean, it's not like they burn it, right?

Well....some people obviously think they do. Otherwise you'd have to come down on the government being better at putting money in the economy for the basic fact they don't save. People save. Rich people don't put all of their money into the economy. The government has no problem with spending all of their money.


So if money spend no matter what means "better economy" then obviously the solution is to give more money to the government.

I think what the good Doc Brown is saying is that "saving" money means that the money is put back into the economy.

According to the White House (I used this to avoid bias complaints... I've seen higher estimates elsewhere), $92,000 of government spending creates one job-year. In other words, for every $92,000 the government spends, one job is created for one year. My question and my issue with the American Recovery Act is whether that $92,000 would be put to better use in the hands of a private company that might be able to create more jobs with that $92,000.

you could also look at it from a production perspective. how productive is the gov't job, how productive is the private sector job. May I also point out that the 92K cost for the job only pay 40-60K for the salary, and you probably also have to add on the expense of building the new, state of the art facility with a skate-board park and a doggy trail

[thegreekdog]

You're barking at the wrong dog... I'm pretty excited for the infrastructure improvements.

[Snorri1234]

you could also look at it from a production perspective. how productive is the gov't job, how productive is the private sector job. May I also point out that the 92K cost for the job only pay 40-60K for the salary, and you probably also have to add on the expense of building the new, state of the art facility with a skate-board park and a doggy trail

Man, you managed to make greek's argument less good. 2/3 goes to the salary, the rest is divided between creating the opportunity for the job and pork-stuff. I am okay with that. In fact, you guys should be okay with it because it means the government is 2/3 effective.

[thegreekdog]

Man, you managed to make greek's argument less good.

What's the definition of futility? thegreekdog?

I need some more conservative voices of reason... like Doc Brown (although his stuff is too dense for me... and I do tax planning).

[Snorri1234]

Man, you managed to make greek's argument less good.

What's the definition of futility? thegreekdog?

I need some more conservative voices of reason... like Doc Brown (although his stuff is too dense for me... and I do tax planning).

I'm actually reading Doc Brown's and your posts. What is good about it is that I can't simply take apart your posts because they're dumb, because they aren't. They have reason and I'm just trying to find some facts and counter-arguments I had somewhere but that's compromised because I'm also busy watching Serenity.

Might take a day.

[thegreekdog]

Man, you managed to make greek's argument less good.

What's the definition of futility? thegreekdog?

I need some more conservative voices of reason... like Doc Brown (although his stuff is too dense for me... and I do tax planning).

I'm actually reading Doc Brown's and your posts. What is good about it is that I can't simply take apart your posts because they're dumb, because they aren't. They have reason and I'm just trying to find some facts and counter-arguments I had somewhere but that's compromised because I'm also busy watching Serenity.

Might take a day.

I appreciate reasoned debate more than no ur stoopid noob (most of those guys are on my side incidentally).

And if you're watching Serenity, take your time. Then go out and buy Firefly, the entire series, watch that, and then get back to me. I probably watch the series three times a year. Stupid Fox.

[Woodruff]

The fact that Megan Fox is hot as f*ck, and makes millions of dollars a year by simply being hot as f*ck, is unfair.

Hell yes, it's unfair. I'm hot as f*ck and I don't get paid diddly-squat!