Barstool economics

I keep all my money under the mattress. My welfare checks aren't very big.

apple0154 said:
I do read your posts through and comment on certain points.

As for stimulating investments one way is to keep the interest rates low just as they are now. People with money in a savings account at a bank are currently losing money due to cost of living increase/inflation and people with money don't like to lose it so they will invest hoping to make more or, at least, stay even.

No one is talking punishment. I don't know where that idea comes from. They are asked to pay tax on money they receive just as everyone else pays tax. The problem is most poor people obtain their money through working as opposed to investing and money obtained through working is taxed at a higher rate than money obtained through investments/capital gains. It is not fair.

The person with money may not invest, however, their money will decrease in value. That's why people do not put all their money under a mattress.

Keep bank interest rates low and people will invest.
Click to expand...
 
Dixie said:
Interest rates are lower than they've ever been and people aren't investing. Why do you suppose that is? Why do we see Gold continue to rise on the market? It's because people with money are NOT investing in ANYTHING right now, they are putting their money in security assets, not capital investments. It's fine to "believe" whatever, but the reality IS what it IS... you can't deny reality! We can argue back and forth about what works and what doesn't, but what is currently being done is clearly NOT working! I've given you my opinion as to why, and you can't really refute that, other than to say it is "nonsense" ....but reality, is slapping you upside your goofy liberal head!
Click to expand...

Just to be sure we're on the same page here are you saying taxation is the reason the wealthy are not investing?
 
apple0154 said:
Just to be sure we're on the same page here are you saying taxation is the reason the wealthy are not investing?
Click to expand...

Not really, I am saying this administration has done NOTHING to stimulate economic growth and prosperity. Your contention that we need to raise cap gains taxes, is moving in the opposite direction of that. The reason people are not investing right now, is because they lack confidence in this administration to do anything favorable to business, your views on what should be done with cap gains taxes is a good example of why they lack confidence.

If you sincerely want to stimulate economic growth and expansion, you have to free up investment capital, and you do that by lowering the tax on cap gains. You can whine about how "unfair" it is all you like, bottom line, that's what drives our economy and without it, we stagnate like we're doing now.
 
wanderingbear said:
Thats what a flat tax means. The poor pay the same as the rich.
Click to expand...
But it isn't what "Fair Tax" means. With a standard deduction (usually set at 35K at the moment) and anything made above that is taxed, it increases the tax burden the more you make. It is progressive without being incredibly complicated. Poor people wouldn't be paying taxes.

Let's give some examples so you can follow.

If I made $40,000 per year, I would be taxed on only 5,000 of it at the tax rate of say 25% my tax bill would be $1250 or .03125% of my vast thousandaire yearly fortune.

If I made 70,000 per year I would be taxed on 35,000 of it at the rate of 25% I would pay 8,750 which would be 12.5% of the yearly....

If I made 100,000 per year I would be taxed on 65,000 of it, I would pay 16,250 which would be an effective tax rate of 16.25% of the yearly..

If I made 200,000 per year I would be taxed on 165,000 of it, I would pay 41,250 which would be 20.6%...

As a person makes more they pay more, the poor do not pay.
 
Dixie said:
Not really, I am saying this administration has done NOTHING to stimulate economic growth and prosperity. Your contention that we need to raise cap gains taxes, is moving in the opposite direction of that. The reason people are not investing right now, is because they lack confidence in this administration to do anything favorable to business, your views on what should be done with cap gains taxes is a good example of why they lack confidence.

If you sincerely want to stimulate economic growth and expansion, you have to free up investment capital, and you do that by lowering the tax on cap gains. You can whine about how "unfair" it is all you like, bottom line, that's what drives our economy and without it, we stagnate like we're doing now.
Click to expand...

And just what contributed to the previous boom? Wealthy individuals either devising or investing in all sorts of "financial instruments" which is code for gambling and ponzi schemes.

The government has to put it's foot down, so to say, and lay it out for banks and other investors. Obama sent a message a few days ago to the banks. They better start lending money.

Look, if the government can lend money to banks and insurance companies it can lend money to anyone. Just as what was necessary to do with health care the same thing needs to be done with loaning money.

The health insurance companies didn't want to insure certain people so the government stepped in. The same thing needs to be done with banks.

Change. It's overdue!
 
apple0154 said:
And just what contributed to the previous boom? Wealthy individuals either devising or investing in all sorts of "financial instruments" which is code for gambling and ponzi schemes.

The government has to put it's foot down, so to say, and lay it out for banks and other investors. Obama sent a message a few days ago to the banks. They better start lending money.

Look, if the government can lend money to banks and insurance companies it can lend money to anyone. Just as what was necessary to do with health care the same thing needs to be done with loaning money.

The health insurance companies didn't want to insure certain people so the government stepped in. The same thing needs to be done with banks.

Change. It's overdue!
Click to expand...

The previous boom was caused by the Bush tax cuts, which you also were opposed to. When Obama won the presidency, it was clear the Bush tax cuts were probably going to expire, so investors pulled their money and put it into securities. You have to remember, rich people are not stupid. They aren't going to just sit there and let liberals come take their wealth away, it just isn't going to happen.

The more government "steps in" the more freedom and liberty you lose. Do you not realize that? The more power you cede to the government, the less personal freedom you retain, and the more the government controls your life. Is that your solution for all the problems?
 
Socrtease said:
Well once again I have to say that the idea is great, but I would tax @ 17% with an additional 10% at 1 million for the same reasons you gave. But ultimately the rate would be somewhere that we could all live with.
Click to expand...

I have no problem adjusting the rate, mine was just an example of how simplistic our tax code SHOULD be. The actual numbers would have to be crunched to make sure that whatever the rate is, it is sustainable.
 
Dixie said:
The previous boom was caused by the Bush tax cuts, which you also were opposed to. When Obama won the presidency, it was clear the Bush tax cuts were probably going to expire, so investors pulled their money and put it into securities. You have to remember, rich people are not stupid. They aren't going to just sit there and let liberals come take their wealth away, it just isn't going to happen.

The more government "steps in" the more freedom and liberty you lose. Do you not realize that? The more power you cede to the government, the less personal freedom you retain, and the more the government controls your life. Is that your solution for all the problems?
Click to expand...

Wrong. The previous boom was created by the removal of Glass Steagall, coupled with the insanely low interest rates from 2001-2005. The tax cuts were a plus in the short term, but without corresponding spending cuts were not sustainable.

It was clear when the Dems won control of both houses of Congress that they would let the Bush cuts expire after next year.

Also...Saying the wealthy pulled their money out of the market and put it into 'securities'.... what do you mean by securities?
 
Superfreak said:
Wrong. The previous boom was created by the removal of Glass Steagall, coupled with the insanely low interest rates from 2001-2005. The tax cuts were a plus in the short term, but without corresponding spending cuts were not sustainable.

It was clear when the Dems won control of both houses of Congress that they would let the Bush cuts expire after next year.

Also...Saying the wealthy pulled their money out of the market and put it into 'securities'.... what do you mean by securities?
Click to expand...

Securities... secure investments, treasury bonds, gold.

It's funny you just waltz in and proclaim me "wrong" then go on to admit I was right about the investors realizing the Bush tax cuts would expire. You can believe whatever with regard to what caused the last economic boom, the point is, it ain't happening now!
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
The poor pay taxes on what they don't have!!! :palm:
Are you nuts - OH, never mind. :good4u:
Click to expand...
No, The Bear is essentially correct. The top third of income earners in this nation control over 90% of the wealth and earnings. They should therefore pay 90% of the taxes on government services. That's why progressive taxation is the only fair form of taxation. In general, our progressive taxation system reflects this, making it one of the fairest systems of taxation in the world. It's when you get above the top 5% of income earners, the very wealthy that you begin to see the income disparity in taxation.
 
apple0154 said:
Wealthy people are more likely to know other wealthy people meaning they are more likely to receive inheritances. Again, tax-free money.
Click to expand...

First of all, the money has already been taxed at least once.

Second of all, its not "free money". They had a family member die.

Third of all, I doubt there are enough cases of someone inheriting money because they knew someone to warrant including it in the discussion. Inheritances are almost always a family member dying and leaving their worldly possessions to their family.

The idea that the gov't is entitled to a chunk of the money is simply wealth envy more than good governing.
 
Dixie:
Taxing their capital gains as income, essentially ends their investing and playing around with large sums of capital that might 'gain' something.
Apple:Nonsense.
Click to expand...

no, it isn't nonsense.....it is easily observable that a tax on capital gains results in stagnation.....that's one of the primary incentives behind IRS 1031 exchange regulations......a person holds title to an investment property.....they would prefer to sell it and reinvest in something else, perhaps because they have depleted the depreciation.....but if they do they need to pay the capital gains tax......thus they simply hold on to the property......

1031 exchanges were created because that stagnation is bad for the economy.....when a property sells it actually generates around 7.5 times the sales price in "economy"......(the seller buys something, which provides capital for that seller to buy something, which provides the capital for......etc).......
 
Dixie said:
The previous boom was caused by the Bush tax cuts, which you also were opposed to. When Obama won the presidency, it was clear the Bush tax cuts were probably going to expire, so investors pulled their money and put it into securities. You have to remember, rich people are not stupid. They aren't going to just sit there and let liberals come take their wealth away, it just isn't going to happen.
Click to expand...

So the answer is to give them unfair tax cuts? Let them earn an income, capital gains, and levy lower taxes than demanded from the guy who earns an income through hourly wages? That's the fair solution?

The more government "steps in" the more freedom and liberty you lose. Do you not realize that? The more power you cede to the government, the less personal freedom you retain, and the more the government controls your life. Is that your solution for all the problems?
Click to expand...

What personal freedom does the average guy lose by forcing the insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions? What personal freedoms does the average guy lose by putting a cap on the amount of interest credit card companies can charge?

If the banks, greedy people with money, want to play hard ball then the government should step in. Unless you own a bank or CC company or are a CEO of one what freedoms do you lose?

If the government can loan billions to the wealthy why can't the government loan money to the average guy? Maybe a government bank option like the proposed medical option?

This is nonsense being held hostage by the banks as far as obtaining a loan. As Obama said we bailed out the banks and now that they're back on their feet they are obliged to help us.

Change. It's overdue.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
i refer you to states like new york, where higher tax rates are driving wealthy individuals to move. This does nothing but remove income from the state, therefore eliminating tax dollars from the budget. but i'm sure that you're all for that, right?
Click to expand...

Huh! Do you ever leave your cave, New York is expensive because the rich live there and push up the price of living there. Ever wonder why ball players get such high salaries on the Yankees etc, take a guess.
 
Dixie said:
The previous boom was caused by the Bush tax cuts, which you also were opposed to. When Obama won the presidency, it was clear the Bush tax cuts were probably going to expire, so investors pulled their money and put it into securities. You have to remember, rich people are not stupid. They aren't going to just sit there and let liberals come take their wealth away, it just isn't going to happen.
Click to expand...

Damn that nonsense gets old. Both Reagan and Bush lowered taxes and accomplished nothing but debt and recession. I know you weren't born yesterday; is it early stage Alzheimer's? At least Reagan eventually raised taxes like crazy, but too late to correct his mistakes.



"There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well."

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxgrowth.htm
http://www.alternativesmagazine.com/25/beaton.html

http://firedoglake.com/2009/02/01/newsflash-ronald-reagan-raised-taxes-you-idiots/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top