The US is insolvent !

Again, go back to the point of my argument, rich people don't need to make money! You are advocating a policy that presumes all rich people will just have to keep making the millions they have been making, and that just isn't the case.


Economics 101 - A Lesson for Dixie

1) Doesn't matter if rich people don't "need to make money". They DO need a place to KEEP their money. What, do you think they're gonna stuff their money under a mattress? No, their going to put their money in investment vehicles that generate economic activity. Stocks, bonds, venture capital, etc.

2) No one is talking about soaking the rich. We're talking about letting the unneccessary and budget-busting tax cuts sunset - as the current law requires in 2010, and revert back to the clinton era tax rates. An era were the rich did better than ever before

3) Stop shedding crocodile tears for tax rates on the rich. As a general rule of thumb, income from investements are taxed at a lower rate, than are wages for middle class schmucks like us. The rich are going to be just fine Dixie - stop crying for them. They've always done fine, under both Democratic and Republican governments. In fact, official economic data for the last century indicates they do better, on average, under Democrats.
 
trying to talk about finance and investment theory with Dixie is like trying to talk about brain surgery with your barber...

He thinks that municipal bonds are things that municipalities keep in a safe somewhere and that don't generate any economic activity.

He thinks that "rich people" will simply stop making money if the marginal tax rate increases incrementally.

When I first ran into him on politics.com. I thought that Dixie was brash and opinionated.... but as the years have gone by, it has become increasingly clear to me that he really is just an uneducated, uncultured, bigoted, lying, unethical, slanderous, uninformed gadfly
 
trying to talk about finance and investment theory with Dixie is like trying to talk about brain surgery with your barber...

LMAO!
 
trying to talk about finance and investment theory with Dixie is like trying to talk about brain surgery with your barber...

trying to talk about economics with Maine is like trying to explain to a 2-year-old, why they can't have ice cream for every meal.

He thinks that municipal bonds are things that municipalities keep in a safe somewhere and that don't generate any economic activity.

I think that municipal bonds are a much safer tax-shelter than investing in a new corporation or capitalist venture, and are far more attractive to a rich old fart trying to protect his assets, and far less stimulating for the overall economy. In short, we will have some very pretty fire stations and ball parks, but no one will have a job at the new plant that doesn't get built, and no one will have money to spend from their new job at the new plant that didn't get built, so the ball park will probably be empty. Eventually, the city will sell the land to Walmart.

We are not debating investment finance here, we are debating the economy. If you continue to want to twist my arguments into some idiotic and lame point about investments and tax laws, that's fine... you go ahead and do that! I have not argued one sentence about investments, my entire argument is economics, and the effects of taxing the rich more.

Again, a real simple point was made earlier by Maine himself... Rich people will always find ways to avoid the taxation... Well, if this is true, then we can understand, just as they would find a way to avoid paying any other tax, they will find a way to avoid paying an income tax. Say we put a 90% luxury tax on yachts... how many MORE yachts do you think we'd sell? My theory is, we would sell LESS yachts, because the rich would find a way to avoid the new tax... and not buy a yacht! Instead, they would lease a yacht or buy a ship! They simply wouldn't just continue to buy yachts at the same pace as before the tax, that would be far too stupid for a typical rich person.

The very same principle is in play, regarding personal income. Most of these people in the upper bracket, simply have no need to gain any more income, they have more money than they can ever spend now, they don't need any more! So, if you tax them more on this, what would be their motivation to continue earning incomes? To make money? Well, hell, you said it yourself... they can do better in tax-sheltered municipal bonds! Why take the risk? Why use their money to make money, when it's going to be taxed to the hilt?

You can get away with raising the taxes on the middle class, because the middle class have no choice but to continue to produce an income, they have to do this to survive, so they have to pay whatever tax we tell them to pay. Rich people do not need to make money, they already have plenty of it! They do not need to produce an income, and if you make the tax burden too great, they won't. When they stop using their money to make more money, the economy will suffer, as it always has.

For the record, I explained this to a 9-year-old once, and they understood it, so I figure it might be on your level. It's really not that hard to grasp, unless you are just hell bent on twisting the argument into something else, and refuse to acknowledge common sense.
 
Dixie....you don't know what the fuck you are talking about...you do not understand how the economy works, and it it clear that you have absolutely no idea how affluent Americans think about their affluence and about ways to maximize it.

and leave the 90% idiocy back up inside your ass where you keep pulling it from.
 
I think that municipal bonds are a much safer tax-shelter than investing in a new corporation or capitalist venture, and are far more attractive to a rich old fart trying to protect his assets, and far less stimulating for the overall economy.


What's that got to do with a tiny increase on the top marginal tax rate for wage income???

Do you honestly think Bill Gates is writing checks on his checking account or passbook savings account from his income from payroll wages at microsoft, to invest in capital ventures, stocks, or bonds? No, more likely he's moving his investment wealth around between various investment options. Or leveraging his investment wealth in the form of loans and other financial vehciles. His investment wealth is typically taxed diferently that his wages, and the top marginal rate doesn't have anything to do with his investment wealth. Stocks, dividends, bonds, etc are generally taxed at much lower rates, than the top marginal rate on wages.
 
maineman said:
Dixie....you don't know what the fuck you are talking about...you do not understand how the economy works, and it it clear that you have absolutely no idea how affluent Americans think about their affluence and about ways to maximize it.

and leave the 90% idiocy back up inside your ass where you keep pulling it from.
Click to expand...

Well, yes, as a matter of fact, I do understand a great deal about economics and how the economy works, and I am making perfectly valid and legitimate points, which is why you are having to resort to ad hominem attacks in response.

And the 90% wasn't pulled from my ass, it comes from the pages of history, and marks the point at which liberals began to squeal "tax cuts for the rich" incessantly in this country. I hope the hell we never return to a 90% TMR, but I also know, if liberals had their way, we would be there again in a heartbeat! If you want to contest that, great! It's good news to hear! I'm glad we have you on record stating how onerous the tax burden can be, and I point you to your own conclusions with regard to the principles of raising any taxes to begin with. 90% is ridiculous for the same reasons 40% is ridiculous, it's the exact same logic and argument.

As long as we aren't talking about addictions, like a smoker is addicted to nicotine... a middle-class American is addicted to earning an income... as long as we are talking about things that people can live without... cable t.v. or new cars and boats... or ventures into commercial enterprises for rich people... taxing it, will only create less of it. Doesn't matter what it is... tax on property owners, will create fewer property owners... tax on profit, will create smaller profits... tax on music purchases...less music buyers. No matter what you are taxing, an increase in the tax will produce fewer of whatever is being taxed. The only exception to this rule, is addictive behaviors. Things that people can't control, and are addicted to doing. With these things, tax can be raised moderately without radically effecting the amount produced, supplied, and demanded.

If someone told you, from now on, to have CNN on your cable, it will cost you an extra $20 a month in taxes... would you leave it as it stands, or drop CNN? Some pinheads who are addicted to CNN, might certainly opt to fork over the extra $20 a month, but most people would find other alternatives for their news, and CNN would probably go out of business. The same is true with venture capitalists, who are also among the wealthiest of our society. If you burden them with excessive taxes and fees to pay, they will stop 'venturing' their 'capital', and keep it invested in "safe bets" or tax shelters. The economy doesn't grow when this happens, because middle class and poor people, don't go build factories and industries, and open new avenues of capitalism, and there is a serious void as a result.

I realize, in Liberal La-la-land, this just doesn't make sense, you see all these rich people getting richer, they have it on the news everyday, and it just makes your blood boil to think they have so much and you have so little... whatever the deal is, you people have it in your pinheads, that if you can just squeeze the rich bastards a little more, imagine how many homeless people could be fed, or sick poor people who could be treated? You see a Great Big Cash Cow... The Rich! Look at all the money they are making! It's insane! Let's pass a bunch of taxes and regulations on them, forcing them to pay for all the things we want and desire in life, because that is the Liberal Way!

I get the premise of Liberalism, and that is why I maintain, it's ignorant of economic principles, and in denial of proven history. Reagan said it best, you can't tax your way to prosperity. You've tried to spin this into some irrelevant debate on investing in municipal bonds or tax laws, but you only further illustrate, how wealthy people have many ways to make money, other than an earned income, so why would they be motivated to earn an income? If they can pay less tax on their return doing other things, that's fine with them, they really have no need to pay more in taxes, so why would they?

Now... IF these wealthy people are playing it safe, investing in mutual funds, municipal bonds, and things like that... and they are no longer investing in venture capital for new companies and factories, and the middle class and poor have no means to invest in these... what is going to likely be the outcome? Simple... Less companies and factories... less jobs... less goods produced... less sold... less revenues to tax.
 
What's that got to do with a tiny increase on the top marginal tax rate for wage income???

You know, under certain parameters, a tiny increase in the TMR might not hurt a thing, it might actually be beneficial in other ways. For instance, Ben Stein's suggestion of a slight increase in the TMR to give the troops an immediate raise, and shore up our supplies for them.

I am not opposed to any tiny increase in the TMR, if the purpose is clear and specific, and the need is valid. Would such a thing have an effect on revenues? I don't know, maybe so, but the benefits would be worth a slight decrease in revenues, in this case. Now, if you just want to raise the TMR for the sake of socking it to the rich, that's a different matter... there is no purpose or reason, it's an emotive jealousy thing, and has no place in sound argument of principle, regarding economics.
 
uscitizen said:
Remember 2/3 of the economy depends on consumer spending :)
Click to expand...

True, but with no new jobs, no new capitalist ventures, no new free-enterprise, where are they going to get money to spend, and where are they going to spend it? And for those who do have money...HOW are they going to spend it, if Uncle Sam has already taken it in taxes?
 
Is everyone ready for the wall street bonuses to distort the average income figures for the country ? And especially for NYC.
 
Dixie said:
True, but with no new jobs, no new capitalist ventures, no new free-enterprise, where are they going to get money to spend, and where are they going to spend it? And for those who do have money...HOW are they going to spend it, if Uncle Sam has already taken it in taxes?
Click to expand...

because, regardless of your off target rants, folks with lots of capital will continue to invest in our economy. They will continue to find ways to get as positive a return on their investment as the market and the law will allow. They always have and they always will. And every time they invest in any sort of equity instrument that generates a return, that equity instrument is simultaneously generating economic activity. Even when the marginal tax rates were twice as high as anyone suggest they should be raised to, Americans with capital to invest in our economy did exactly that. To suggest otherwise is to ignore the historical performance of the stock market and the American business economy for the last hundred years.
 
"I am not opposed to any tiny increase in the TMR, if the purpose is clear and specific, and the need is valid. Would such a thing have an effect on revenues? I don't know, maybe so, but the benefits would be worth a slight decrease in revenues, in this case. Now, if you just want to raise the TMR for the sake of socking it to the rich, that's a different matter.."


No one's ever said we simply want to soak the rich. The rich are just fine. They're always going to be just fine. We want to sunset bush's tax cuts for the rich, and return the top marginal rate to where it was during the clinton era - an era when the rich did incredibly well.

And the reason for doing it, is because you're chimp boy spent us into the gutter. Somebody's got to pay for your war. It sure as hell shouldn't be my grandkids paying for it.
 
Even when the marginal tax rates were twice as high as anyone suggest they should be raised to, Americans with capital to invest in our economy did exactly that. To suggest otherwise is to ignore the historical performance of the stock market and the American business economy for the last hundred years.

This isn't true at all. Before Reagan cut the top marginal rates, there was virtually no capital being invested in lucrative capitalist ventures for rich people, they couldn't afford to. Sure, they played it safe, invested in bonds, and grew the stock market... they didn't build new enterprises, start new companies and plants, or invest in anything they might yield an income from, because the tax rate was so high. Because of this, we had stagnant growth periods, and soaring inflation. When the top marginal rates were cut, it enabled these wealthy people to invest in the capitalist ventures, and they prospered, so did our economy.

To ignore this reality of what has happened since Reagan, is typical liberalism. Go look up how many new businesses and companies were started between Eisenhower and Reagan, and the number that have been started since. I will bet you the number is higher, from Reagan until now. The reason being, primarily due to the decrease of the top marginal rate, as well as capital gains reductions. Also because of deregulation and tax incentives for certain kinds of business. The whole concept of Reaganomics is based on freeing up money from the rich old farts, to build capitalist ventures, which grow the economy, which produces MORE revenue than raising taxes ever could.

But in the static world of Liberalism, rich people who made $2 trillion last year, will make the same $2 trillion this year and pay 2-3% higher taxes on it... nothing will change... all the revenues will increase because the rich people are too stupid and greedy to think of another way to make money. They are so stupid and greedy, they would rather lose 50-60-90% of their profit, than to not make a profit, or think of a better way to make money in tax-free bonds or something.... they will continue to build capitalist ventures and be taxed to the hilt, because they are so ignorant and foolish with their money, they just can't help themselves. I guess this must be how a liberal sees it, because that's about all I can figure out.
 
No one's ever said we simply want to soak the rich. The rich are just fine. They're always going to be just fine. We want to sunset bush's tax cuts for the rich, and return the top marginal rate to where it was during the clinton era - an era when the rich did incredibly well.

And the reason for doing it, is because you're chimp boy spent us into the gutter. Somebody's got to pay for your war. It sure as hell shouldn't be my grandkids paying for it.

Got news for ya Prissy, your grandkids will still be paying for WWII and FDR's entitlement programs. Sorry to break it to ya like that, I thought you understood we are in debt, and have been in debt for years. Still, you raise an interesting premise, paying off something with the taxes you increase... well... how can you pay off something when you have less money? Increasing taxes will decrease revenue, are you not paying attention? It seems, if you are interested in paying off something, you would want to do something to increase revenues, not decrease them.
 
Dixie said:
No one's ever said we simply want to soak the rich. The rich are just fine. They're always going to be just fine. We want to sunset bush's tax cuts for the rich, and return the top marginal rate to where it was during the clinton era - an era when the rich did incredibly well.

And the reason for doing it, is because you're chimp boy spent us into the gutter. Somebody's got to pay for your war. It sure as hell shouldn't be my grandkids paying for it.

Got news for ya Prissy, your grandkids will still be paying for WWII and FDR's entitlement programs. Sorry to break it to ya like that, I thought you understood we are in debt, and have been in debt for years. Still, you raise an interesting premise, paying off something with the taxes you increase... well... how can you pay off something when you have less money? Increasing taxes will decrease revenue, are you not paying attention? It seems, if you are interested in paying off something, you would want to do something to increase revenues, not decrease them.
Click to expand...

There is not a revenue problem in this country. It is the radical leftist spending of the Republicans that is the problem right now. Now, I understand that the Democrats are just as radical in their spending habits as the Republicans, but spending has gone up by nearly 1 trillion dollars in the last 6 years. There is a spending problem in this country, and that's what nobody on this thread seems to understand. The trouble isn't that we don't hose the wealthy bad enough, we do hose them plenty. In fact, everybody pretty much gets hosed.

The problem is in the spending, and the Republicans, who are supposed to be the fiscally more responsible of the two parties, have turned out to be the biggest spenders in the history of the solar system. That's just sick. 6 years ago, when I voted for the retard in the Whitehouse, I did so because of his promise to cut taxes. If I had known that the other side of the coin would be grossly and completely neglected, if I knew that this stupid, stupid man was going to sign into law every single spending bill that congress put before him, and that he was going to become a nation builder and spend nearly a trillion dollars outside of this country, I would have voted for Nader.

It is not a revenue issue in this country, and really never has been. The government is simply a glutton at a never-ending buffet. It has enough damned money. The left will never ever think so, and there is no longer a fiscally conservative party anywhere in power, so we've essentially got 1 party when it comes to the spending thing. And more and more spending, larger and larger deficits will lead to higher taxes someday, any way you slice it.

Like you said Dix, we're paying for programs started 60 years ago and will continue to. So why you're not screaming and yelling about the Republican retard's spending is beyond me. Its beyond pinheaded.
 
Lol...

:pke: at Beefy...at least dixie speaks in the first person...whether or not ya agree with his analysis...at least he is open and honest...unlike maineman et al..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top