Schadenfreude
patriot and widower
pass him a glass of koolaid
End partisan politics
- Thread starter Cancel 2018. 3
- Start date
pass him a glass of koolaid
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
No, you are stupid on this, because you are essentially agreeing with the liberal point, that rich people have more money than they deserve, and can afford a tax increase. And that such an increase would not result in any negative effect on the economy. You are as fucked in the head about this as any liberal I know.
There has been NO bullshit fact presented by me on this! You can do the homework if you like, (Nigey just posted raw data), but every time we have increased the top marginal tax rate, revenues declined when adjusted for GDP growth. Every time we've lowered the rate, the revenues increased. In fact, the last time top marginal rate increases resulted in an increase of revenue-to-GDP, was during the American Revolution.
How can you possibly be a "conservative" and not understand supply-side economics? The argument made by conservatives on taxes, is that ANY increase is bad, regardless of what a person makes! That fundamental principle doesn't magically change because a person makes a certain dollar amount each year! When you abandon the conservative principles on taxation, and allow the liberal argument to prevail, you are effectively working against conservatism. In other words, you are a PINHEAD!!
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
first off dixie....it is NOT a tax increase...bush's tax cut is set to expire, letting them expire is not a tax increase, it simply ends the tax cut and brings us back to the way it was....you know....before the TEMPORARY tax cuts were made into law....second, i could give a shit if you think i'm as fucked as a liberal, coming from one who can't come up with truthful facts/stats, i'll say....thank you
you're full of shit....top marginal tax rates were increased during the 50's and 60's and revenues did NOT decline as you suggest....and not everytime we lowered tax rates on top marginal rates did revenues decline....you can't provide anything to support such a bullshit claim....link up or shut up dixie
not all conservatives believe as you do and guess what....tax rates ideologue is NOT the only platform or ideologue of the conservative....
letting the tax rate expire on those making a MILLION dollars and over makes sense and is economically conservative....you won't be happy until the MILLIONAIRES are paying zero and the lower class is paying 100% in taxes
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
The Bush tax cuts were "temporary" because we lacked enough Democrat votes to make them "permanent!" If the cuts expire, taxes increase, THUS, there would be an effective tax increase! DUH!
And as for fact, I have presented them, you don't understand or don't want to try and understand, but that's not really MY problem.
Why do you think KENNEDY wanted to lower top marginal rates? Like I said, go do your own research, I don't need to post links to sources which you and others can pick apart with your typical bullshit, the information is out there all over the Internet, and you are invited to dig into it, if you don't take my word for it. You'll find, every time we've increased the top marginal rate, the revenue-to-GDP has declined in subsequent years. There is a slight increase the first year, but after that little bit of a gain, it's all loss! We LOSE revenue by increasing the top marginal rates! Additionally, every time we've reduced the top marginal rates, it has resulted in an increase in revenues for the years to follow. This has been well documented by the Heritage Foundation and others. What is even more important than this fact, is the reason WHY that is the case, which apparently, you don't get! When you reduce the tax burden on the top marginal earners, you free up capital which is often used to invest in new business, upgrading existing businesses, hiring new workers, expanding, and growing the economy in immeasurable ways across the board. The end result is, people make more money, and in turn, pay more tax dollars, even though their actual rate of taxation is lower.
Every true conservative who understood Reagan's economic principles and the principles of supply-side economics, believe as I do. Keynesian idiots, and clueless dolts like yourself, want to argue CLASS WARFARE and make "the rich" some evil entity that we need to punish for their success. That's because they wish to implement a Socialist Marxist system, and to do that, they need to bring down the capitalist system. They do appreciate you help in accomplishing that objective, and please don't be offended by the term "useful idiot" they have applied to your type, it's just a name.
Schadenfreude
patriot and widower
link/source?
imo, increasing/reducing after tax income for the wealthy has no effect on the number of jobs
our older son runs his own business and his after tax income has no effect on how many people he employees - he hires as many or few people he needs based on how much product moves through his business - fyi he employees over 30 people, from hourly people in his warehouse to sales types to his few salaried types
he only hires the people that he needs
Last edited:
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
We are not talking about "after tax income" idiot, we are talking about TAXES ON INCOME! Just because your son doesn't base his business decisions on his personal income, doesn't mean that tax rates on top marginal earners will not effect business, it will, and dramatically.
Pretty much ALL business hires the people they need! Did you think I was saying, if we don't increase their taxes, they'll hire a bunch of people they don't need? That's an absurd idea, and I can understand why you would want to think I made such an argument, but that is not the point I made at all. If we don't increase their taxes, they have more money available to them, and they can do any number of things with that money, like start a new branch of their business that didn't previously exist! This would require them to hire workers they previously didn't need! Or maybe they just put it in the bank and don't do anything with it... still, the bank gets the money, which it can loan out to people who need to buy a new truck for their business, or upgrade equipment, or whatever they spend the money to do... it stimulates and grows the economy in some way. Of course, confiscating the money and giving it to a politician to pay off his contributors and special interests, also stimulates the economy, but it doesn't spark growth in the private sector or create new jobs.
Schadenfreude
patriot and widower
i disagree with your major premise
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
I wanted to come back to this. Please don't get the impression I am giddy about this "deal" Obama has ironed out with Congress! I am not happy about it at all. In essence, Obama got what amounts to a $900 billion stimulus! That is mighty unprecedented for a president on the heels of a midterm blowout. I think Republicans should have held firm on extending the tax cuts for everyone, and insisted on any extension of UI benefits to be paid for with cuts in something else.
As for your idiotic assessment of what would make me happy, I have never advocated millionaires or anyone else, not pay tax, or that lower-class should pay 100% tax. Currently, about 40% (including the lower-class) pay no income tax at all, in fact, the "lower class" you claim I want to pay 100% of the taxes, is getting an EIC credit for taxes they didn't ever pay into the system! On reducing the top marginal rates, the Laffer Curve comes into play, where reducing taxes after a certain point, has little to no effect on increasing revenues, and will actually begin to decrease revenues. I don't support cutting taxes to that point, but we are FAR from being at that point.
Yurt, the bottom line is, you have bought into the liberal class envy rhetoric, and you have adopted the liberals position on taxing the rich. We can tell this by the way you continue to use "MILLIONAIRE" in all caps, and hang on that word, like it has significance here. Like that makes the point more valid somehow. In your mind, someone who makes $1 million a year, doesn't deserve all that money, and we have a right to take it away from them and give it to people who have less. Well what difference does the dollar amount make, if that is your philosophy? Couldn't we argue that someone who makes $300k a year, falls into the same category? What about someone who makes $175k a year? How about $80k a year? Damn if I wouldn't like a job making that! So, at what point to people make little enough that you feel they deserve what they make and you don't feel compelled to steal their money and give it to more needy people?
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
I'm not at all surprised, I didn't expect you to agree with me. But generally speaking, when someone disagrees with another, they present their justification for disagreement, they point out the flaws in what was said, or something. I'm sorry, you aren't the King, and we don't just genuflect toward your wisdom and guidance here, you have to make a case for your arguments, and when you refute something, you have to give some kind of basis for it.
Schadenfreude
patriot and widower
i am not providing links as this is my opinion
i was incorrect referring to after tax income what i meant to refer to is that the tax rate has nothing to do with how many people a person who runs a business hires - if there is no demand, there is no reason to expand or hire
- 30 -
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
But you are wrong, how much a business will have to pay in tax next year, may have a tremendous effect on how they plan for the year. Nothing is ever altruistic here, I didn't say that in every case, in every possible scenario, a business will automatically hire more people because their tax rates didn't go up. In fact, with the backhanded insults against conservatives, and the promise from Obama to revisit the Bush tax cuts in two years, he probably didn't do a lot to stimulate the confidence needed to spark any real job growth. I know his little speech wouldn't have made me feel more confident about expanding and hiring now.... for what? two years?
Try to understand this, people who make that kind of money ($1 million a year) are not stupid people, they aren't just going to sit there and allow the government to take more of their money, they will find a way around it, they always do. If, by chance, they do end up having to pay Uncle Sam more than the previous year, do you think that money will come out of their champagne budget? Do you think they will take less trips out in the yacht? Nope... chances are, if they sell a product or service, they will increase their price to compensate for the extra they will have to pay, and their normal "rich person" life will go on as usual, totally unaffected by your tax increases. Now, who pays for that? Well, the consumer, you and I pay for that, through increased prices at the shelf.
Schadenfreude
patriot and widower
i do not foresee that a tax increase will cause a producer to increase the price of their product - market forces dictate prices
i am done for now - back later in the morning or pm
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Well, if they don't increase their prices, they will make cuts in their budgets somewhere to compensate. I can tell you first-hand what most businesses will do, with regard to hiring, they will allow normal attrition to occur in departments, and not replace the labor. The remaining employees have to pick up the slack left behind, and become more efficient. This trend has been happening for over a decade now, and shows no sign of changing. Lately, companies have been having mandatory furloughs for all employees, where you have to take a week off each quarter without pay. Gannett saved $20 million per quarter last year, doing just that.
The thing that seems to completely escape the left, democrats, and liberals... and sometimes Yurt... is a very simple point... The Rich is a label that means absolutely nothing. It is used as a buzzword for liberals, to implement the warfare on class. Yurt uses the word "millionaire" because it conjures up an image of someone with mansions and butlers, limos and yachts, and in 2010, that's just not the case. Maybe a BILLION-aire, but $1mil just ain't that large these days. I personally know several people who's lifestyles are not that of a rich person, but I bet they have an estate worth well over a million. In essence, they are worth a million, they are millionaires. I only know of one friend who makes a million (or more) a year, and he does live well. But every situation is different, every person is individual and has an individual set of priorities, nothing is a stereotype!
Here is an example you can try... If I give you up to $5 to eat dinner, where will you pick to eat dinner? Now... If I give you up to $100 to eat dinner, would you eat at the same place? Okay... now, if you sold dinners, would you rather sell a $5 dinner, or a $100 dinner? If you were a waiter or waitress, would you rather serve a $5 order or a $100 table? Which of these stimulate the economy more? I know, you are asking, what does this have to do with the discussion, but the point is this... ANY tax increase, on ANY citizen, is not going to stimulate the economy, but it will make it worse. If you take the money away from the taxpayer, he can't stimulate anything with it, he only gets to spend $5 on dinner. Let the taxpayer keep their money, and they buy the $100 dinner, because they have the money! Isn't that just so simple and easy to comprehend?
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
still no links....thought so
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
As I explained in the previous post, I am not posting links to have you pick apart the source and play your little distortion games with. The information is widely available, and I encourage you to look into it. I even gave you a place to start, the Heritage Foundation! I know they have done studies on it, and I think Pugh Research did as well, or maybe Princeton? In any event, this has been studied thoroughly, and what I said is the truth, raising top marginals decreases the actual revenue, lowering top marginals produces more revenue, as a percentage of GDP.
Yurt, the more pressing issue is you need to decide whether you are a Socialist Liberal or a Capitalist Conservative. Right now, you have a conflicted view. You come across as a conservative who doesn't really understand the principles of conservatism. This is causing you to entertain notions of Socialist Liberals, which are diametrically opposed to Capitalist Conservatism.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
So Warren Buffet hates the rich, wants them to seem like some evil entity that we need to punish for their success, and wishes to implement a "Socialist Marxist" system?
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Dixie, weren't you going to move to a desert island with your super-duper-large fortune after Obama was elected? Why haven't you done that yet?
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Socialist, liberal, capitalist, and conservative do not need to be capitalized in the quoted paragraphs. The only context in which it is necessary to capitalize the names of ideologies is why it's part of a proper noun, such as the Socialist Liberal party, or in reference to the novel Conservative Capitalism by L. Ron Hubbard. It is not necessary to capitalize these words when you are merely making reference to them or labeling somebody with them.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
i rarely attack the source...i didn't think you could support your wild assertions, but you didn't have pull the ad hom routine
i don't care to fall into your little world view boxes...i've constantly said i lean conservative, but i also have liberal views....why don't you spend less time on focusing on yurt and putting him into a box and more time backing your claims up...
thanks