we started falling off topic as soon as akanska came around. he gave us a sob story, so we had to start talking about it.
Isnt akanska a woman?
Too bad farley isn’t around to jump all over that…
MattLikesAnalysis Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I like what you’ve said there chadwick and I fully > agree. > > Higher corporate taxes and higher taxes on > lucrative small business will create a more > competitive environment in the long-run. It will > allow for less barriers to entry as there isn’t as > much money blocking them out. > > And also, a major reason why I like these taxes is > that rich freeloaders are a much sicker disease > than poor freeloaders. Being rich and doing > nothing with your time and/or money made by > someone else in your family is a disgrace compared > to someone coming from a background of slavery who > has a hard time finding the motivation to fight > through the 10000x more adversity than the > well-off individual. > > Opportunity is not equal when some are born with > 99% of the world’s wealth. You have to remember, > slavery created money for those who took advantage > of it, same with serfdom in the the middle ages > and all other forms of slavery and persecution > before that. Not all money is made from hard work, > but I believe that every individual must work for > their income, not make it off of daddy’s wealth > and be taxed less than the guy who your family > took advantage of for centuries. > > This isn’t just a tax issue, its a form of > reparations, not just for colour, but for a class > that is given little chance. And us talking on > this forum, likely middle class, get the benefit > of that and if we’re smart, will use it to make > more. This is idiotic on multiple levels.
Right. Husband. Give me a break. I’m from Canada, gay marriages are the flavour of the decade.
MattLikesAnalysis Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > we started falling off topic as soon as akanska > came around. he gave us a sob story, so we had to > start talking about it. 1. I’m a lady 2. Its not a sob story. Not wanting to pay for others poor decisions is not a sob story; the millions that put themselves in that position (of needing gov’t assistance) are the sob story. there is something fundamentally wrong with your analysis if you interpret one’s concern over the gov’t possibly fleecing those who were responsible to prop up those who weren’t. thanks
MattLikesAnalysis Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Right. Husband. Give me a break. I’m from Canada, > gay marriages are the flavour of the decade. Dude, she moved from so cal to texas - hardly a move a gay couple would make.
Thanks for the input EMH. You have fingers to insult but none to reason. Akanska: I didn’t mean to offend at all. I guess my definition of sob story is different than yours. I just meant it was a real topic with some feeling in it, compared to the impersonal dialogue that took place before.
To elaborate for you EMH since you provided so much insight, is that I believe government’s role is to ensure fairness and defeat persecution of different classes, races, genders, etc. Working individuals (full-time), should not live in poverty, period. You do realize that someone MUST work at the bottom of the pyramid right?
“Working individuals (full-time), should not live in poverty, period.” As long as they are attempting to better their situation and not take handouts…but when they become complacent, spend beyond their means, and rely on others and lose ambition and drive, they deserve poverty.
To get back to the original post, I think Obama’s argument is that he will not re-up on the Bush tax cuts. Since that is the existing law of the land, that is not considered a tax increase. As such, it is a fair argument that investors’ required rates of returns should have been based on existing laws. If that isn’t the case, then the investor made a bad investment assumption. As to the subsequent arguments, it’s not clear if people are just arguing for and against progressivity in the income tax code, or on the degrees of progressivity. If it’s the former: this is moot, a flat tax or consumption tax will never happen in our life times. If it’s the latter, it would be helpful if people stated their preferred level of progressivity by administration (Reagan, Clinton, Bush), so we can get beyond people’s ‘feelings’ and ‘hunches’ of the appropriate level. I chalk down Clinton. As to the argument that you cannot tax your way to prosperity, the current situation gives evidence that you cannot cut taxes to prosperity either. Going forward, whichever candidate wins is going to have to raise taxes. We are facing a $1 trillion deficit, how will that be funded? Isn’t the crowding out effect an important part of the discussion, in addition to the impacts on required rates of return?
kevinf12 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > “Working individuals (full-time), should not live > in poverty, period.” > > As long as they are attempting to better their > situation and not take handouts…but when they > become complacent, spend beyond their means, and > rely on others and lose ambition and drive, they > deserve poverty. Kevin, What’s up man? I agree with you. One of the biggest things that bothers me about American is the growing attitute of self entitlement that many americans have. It is hard for me to understand all you people who call for more entitlement spending. The new deal, the great society, the war on poverty - how many trillions of dollars have been spent in the US over the past 80 years for the purpose of eradicating poverty? How much more should be spent? I have no problems with having a “safety net” in society for those who fall on desperate times, but the current state on entitlement spending in the US is out of control. Just look at how entitlement spending has increased as a percentage of the annual national budget. There is a huge difference between subsidizing a lifetime of freeloading and temporarily helping those facing homelessness. “I believe government’s role is to ensure fairness and defeat persecution of different classes, races, genders, etc.” mattlikesanalysis - I don’t know about Canada, but in the US we have this document called the Constitution that supposedly outlines the government’s “role in society”. I don’t recall it saying anything about “defeating the persecution of different classes.”
Just to clarify my position - I am for safety nets, not for creating handouts to freeloaders. I just feel that the next few years is going to call for a lot of use of safety nets, and that may mean revisiting how taxation is done. In practice, it’s going to be hard to separate out those needing safety nets from those who are freeloading, and I think it’s more important not to let people fall through nets than to assure that no one ever freeloads. I think that government aid should be tied to citizen and corporate responsibilities. Unemployment is linked to looking for a job or building new employable skills. Bailing out bad debt should be linked to taking control over any remaining equity. Industrial subsidies should be linked to performance expectations. I also think that environmental regulations are appropriate to have, although not all environmental regulations are implemented in an economically sensible way.
Texas is awesome, why the hell would you want to live in California? Jesus was a capitalist, he wouldn’t vote for Obama. Additionally, what right does the Federal Government have to redistribute wealth? They can tax us for essential services, but giving a check to people who don’t pay any taxes is not essential. What Obama is suggesting is that we tear up the constitution and end the right of states to conduct business as they wish. If I want to live in a state that redistributes wealth, that is fine and dandy, but the Feds can’t force me to.
FINforLIL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Jesus was a capitalist, he wouldn’t vote for > Obama. > Sarcasm??? This thread is going nowhere…
The bible certainly implies as much. Jesus wasn’t a fan of slackers who hide money under their pillows. He also believed in small government…I think.
Though no fan of “slackers” I think the Larry Kudlows of the world have considered him to be a socialist… He also wasn’t a white guy like every western depiction of him…not that that has anything to do with this topic, just thought I’d stick that in the nose of the extreme right wing white supremacists who claim to be “christian”…
Jesus was not a socialist. He was an A1 capitalist. Kudlow would have been his best buddy. Jesus was almost certainly of African descent (all people are anyway), that area would have been in the middle of transitioning from more of an African influenced ethnicity to one influenced much more by Romans and Persians.
I have to admit it would be funny to see Jesus as a guest on Kudlow or FOX LOL. OK, this is going nowhere, and I share responibility!!!
FINforLIL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The bible certainly implies as much. Jesus wasn’t > a fan of slackers who hide money under their > pillows. > > > He also believed in small government…I think. Matthew 22:21.