US,
Thank Sentaor McCain for giving exxon mobile another 400 million in tax credits.....
I hear obama's starting to go after Kentucky as well.... Kentucky... who woulda thunk it.??
Where does wealth come from?
- Thread starter Onceler
- Start date
US,
Thank Sentaor McCain for giving exxon mobile another 400 million in tax credits.....
I hear obama's starting to go after Kentucky as well.... Kentucky... who woulda thunk it.??
uscitizen
Villified User
It may actually be close here. I just hope we can ditch Mitch the bush sycophant.
uscitizen
Villified User
but you did in 2000....... i know you did one of the times!!!
yes he even admitted to voting bush in 2000. And I suspect he will vote McCain this time too. Of course he would never admit to doing it.
KingCondanomation
New member
The deficit came from defense spending and other spending. As a matter of fact tax revenue increased after Reagan's large income tax cuts for the wealthy.
http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm
Good Luck
New member
Wealth is derived from the transformation of goods from one form to another more valuable form. This is accomplished through many channels, but three primary methods. Of course, we must remember that value is relative. If value were absolute, trade and all of economics would be impossible.
The first method is to actually change the physical makeup of one or more objects to create a more valuable object. This includes processing of natural resources, and manufacture of finished and consumer goods.
The second method is to add value by the action of presenting and making consumer goods easily available to the consumer. Included is customer service, such as waiting, cashiering, reception, etc.
The third method is assisting consumers directly in non-tangibles. ie: trading knowledge and ability directly to the consumer.
The thing is, all elvels of the economy are dependent on one another. The small business whose trade it is to present consumer goods through the addition of customer service would not be able to function if another business did not supply them with their goods. Those who supply small businesses with goods to present to the consumer are, by necessity, larger than the small businesses whom they serve - often MUCH larger. (ie: corporations)
In order to function, all businesses from the smallest to the largest, cash flow is to final word. Cash flow allows businesses of all sizes to access their materials, pay their employees, develop their products, and expand as the market allows. As such, interruption of cash flow through unusual or targeted taxation, diminishes the full capability of an economy. That is why "tax breaks" (ie: alleviating the burdens of taxation on economic flow) ends up being the standard practice of both political parties. The wise thing to do is simply come up with a taxation level that minimizes it's influence on economic flow.
IMO, corporate taxes should be minimized. Obama's complaint that it "gives major opil and additional 4 billion dollars" is so much hocum. While some of that money goes into the pockets of corporate heads, most of it is recycled into the economy, going to investors, acquisition of raw materials, increased refining, (both of which mean jobs) etc. The money which is recycled into the economy is what causes economic growth.
As such, Obama's maneuvers to make the people angry and jealous of oil company profits as justification for taxing those profits at a higher level will ultimately be harmful to the economy. The same is true of all corporate taxation.
Then there is the complication of stock markets and their influence on the economic abilities of corporations. Investment in corporate stock greatly enhances the corporations ability to expand, explore new products, improve current products, etc. In return for investment, the investor receives compensation for times when the corporation is successful. Despite short term fluctuations, and even short term free falls as we are seeing now, the ability to invest in corporate activities through the stock market is a win-win-win situation. The corporations win by receiving more operating capital; the investors (the smart - ie: long term- ones) win as corporations expand (those that fail are by far the exception rather than the rule) and increase their stock values, plus dividend payments, and the economy (ie: everyone, from Joe Plumber to Uncle Sam) wins as markets expand, jobs are created, wages increased, etc. etc. etc.
Once again, heavy taxation of this aspect of the economy diminishes its ability to expand the economy. So, again, Obama is wrong to target investment income for heavy taxation under his class envy excuses. Diminished ability to expand the economy results in lowered production (to include imports) which in turn depresses supply, thus increasing prices.
Now, where Obama is correct (and McCain is wrong) is that the consumer's purchasing ability is also a prime factor in a robust economy. Targeting those whose disposable incomes are minimal (or non-existent) is just as important as planning proper taxation at the corporate/investor level. Increased purchasing power will also result in an expanding economy. Though, like investments and profits, purchasing BY ITSELF is not sufficient. A truly robust economy must be fed from BOTH ends, the consumer end AND the production end.
The first method is to actually change the physical makeup of one or more objects to create a more valuable object. This includes processing of natural resources, and manufacture of finished and consumer goods.
The second method is to add value by the action of presenting and making consumer goods easily available to the consumer. Included is customer service, such as waiting, cashiering, reception, etc.
The third method is assisting consumers directly in non-tangibles. ie: trading knowledge and ability directly to the consumer.
The thing is, all elvels of the economy are dependent on one another. The small business whose trade it is to present consumer goods through the addition of customer service would not be able to function if another business did not supply them with their goods. Those who supply small businesses with goods to present to the consumer are, by necessity, larger than the small businesses whom they serve - often MUCH larger. (ie: corporations)
In order to function, all businesses from the smallest to the largest, cash flow is to final word. Cash flow allows businesses of all sizes to access their materials, pay their employees, develop their products, and expand as the market allows. As such, interruption of cash flow through unusual or targeted taxation, diminishes the full capability of an economy. That is why "tax breaks" (ie: alleviating the burdens of taxation on economic flow) ends up being the standard practice of both political parties. The wise thing to do is simply come up with a taxation level that minimizes it's influence on economic flow.
IMO, corporate taxes should be minimized. Obama's complaint that it "gives major opil and additional 4 billion dollars" is so much hocum. While some of that money goes into the pockets of corporate heads, most of it is recycled into the economy, going to investors, acquisition of raw materials, increased refining, (both of which mean jobs) etc. The money which is recycled into the economy is what causes economic growth.
As such, Obama's maneuvers to make the people angry and jealous of oil company profits as justification for taxing those profits at a higher level will ultimately be harmful to the economy. The same is true of all corporate taxation.
Then there is the complication of stock markets and their influence on the economic abilities of corporations. Investment in corporate stock greatly enhances the corporations ability to expand, explore new products, improve current products, etc. In return for investment, the investor receives compensation for times when the corporation is successful. Despite short term fluctuations, and even short term free falls as we are seeing now, the ability to invest in corporate activities through the stock market is a win-win-win situation. The corporations win by receiving more operating capital; the investors (the smart - ie: long term- ones) win as corporations expand (those that fail are by far the exception rather than the rule) and increase their stock values, plus dividend payments, and the economy (ie: everyone, from Joe Plumber to Uncle Sam) wins as markets expand, jobs are created, wages increased, etc. etc. etc.
Once again, heavy taxation of this aspect of the economy diminishes its ability to expand the economy. So, again, Obama is wrong to target investment income for heavy taxation under his class envy excuses. Diminished ability to expand the economy results in lowered production (to include imports) which in turn depresses supply, thus increasing prices.
Now, where Obama is correct (and McCain is wrong) is that the consumer's purchasing ability is also a prime factor in a robust economy. Targeting those whose disposable incomes are minimal (or non-existent) is just as important as planning proper taxation at the corporate/investor level. Increased purchasing power will also result in an expanding economy. Though, like investments and profits, purchasing BY ITSELF is not sufficient. A truly robust economy must be fed from BOTH ends, the consumer end AND the production end.
Kamala Trump
Verified User
Or if you're powerful enough, You use your friends in government to hand you massive lump sums which are of questionable value to society as a whole.
$900 hammer, $85 billion dollar bailout, $700 billion bailout etc.
This revenue stream is so important, those suckling on this corrupt tit will kill and lie to maintain their nipple hold.
Last edited:
Yeah, I was going to come on and make some schmaltzy family post, but I'll let somebody else do it.