It happens to the best. It is tough on the road campaigning and preparing for an endless cycle of mind-numbing debates. Unfortunately, this unforced error will be replayed over and over by a media monster which is bent on destroying any and all Republican candidates this cycle. If Perry some how managed to become a front runner again, there would be more made up, trumped up, garbage stories that the major media outlets would stick on for weeks, just to destroy him as a person. The truth be damned. The media has a higher and more noble agenda to push, getting their guy back in for four more years, with plenty of regular folks still willing to buy their soap. With the media 80% behind him, plus $2 billion in big corporate and union money to spend on ads, the chief has a clear run.
You can't beat someone with nobody, and right now the reality is that the Republicans have a bunch of nobodies. Any Republican candidate above 10% in polling has major flaws that will be ripped open in the fall campaign, by a rabid and ugly media, plus about $2 billion worth of negative ads.
as president (the one man job that it is) I will fire Bernanke.... one man in the Fed controlling things, not the market?!?!?! *scoff*
ooops.
(one man doesn't make all the decisions in the Fed nor Fed Gov't, and the market had fed funds rate down near zero before the Fed declared they would hold them in a 0%-.25% range... where the market already had it. Guessed whoever missed those facts.)
but, similar to the bailout of the banks, you can give these guys all the money in the world, but you can't require they spend it.
tax cut them to zero.
Where do I think it will go? The bank!
We need a new way to spur growth instead of the "tax cut to growth" idea. (we can't make them spend the tax cuts. You want growth? propose a different idea. You want lower taxes? fine. just don't expect the companies with extra cash to spend it... not in this economy)
tax cuts along with sensible business deregulation will do two things: 1. Put more spending money in the consumer's pocket = greater demand for goods and services = more employment 2. Reduce business costs = lower prices and more financial resources to invest in the business
to justify tax cuts gov. spending needs to be reduced.
<< <i>It happens to the best. It is tough on the road campaigning and preparing for an endless cycle of mind-numbing debates. Unfortunately, this unforced error will be replayed over and over by a media monster which is bent on destroying any and all Republican candidates this cycle. If Perry some how managed to become a front runner again, there would be more made up, trumped up, garbage stories that the major media outlets would stick on for weeks, just to destroy him as a person. The truth be damned. The media has a higher and more noble agenda to push, getting their guy back in for four more years, with plenty of regular folks still willing to buy their soap. With the media 80% behind him, plus $2 billion in big corporate and union money to spend on ads, the chief has a clear run.
You can't beat someone with nobody, and right now the reality is that the Republicans have a bunch of nobodies. Any Republican candidate above 10% in polling has major flaws that will be ripped open in the fall campaign, by a rabid and ugly media, plus about $2 billion worth of negative ads. >>
No Republican candidate will be good enough for the liberal media. The same media will cover up, minimize and outright misrepresent the failures of the Dear Leader. They will pull out all the stops in 2012 to destroy anyone the GOP nominates.
The equation only changes when people stop trusting the media and making their own decisions. You can only claim that sewage is vanilla ice cream for so long. This is happening with the Cain story. GOP voters are fed up with the endless attacks on their candidates. The media is frustrated they cannot take out Cain.
Its not hopeless. The landslides of 1980 and 1984 were accomplished despite the near strangehold on power held by the media elites. Alternative media did not exist. Dan Rather's "fake but true" National Guard story of 2004 was proven to be a fraud by the alternative media. November 2010 was a fine example that they cannot exert their old power.
one side of the media will always attack the other side.
eventually, things could always be better so the president takes the hit.
I agree that slowly people are waking up to the endless bickering, finger pointing, and out right dirty politics and beginning to see through it all. The faster it happens the better.
I just wish all the candidates from both sides would act and talk like they aren't going to be dictator of the us, instead of president and only one of the three branches. Of course the media doesn't help in continuing the "what are you going to do" treatment. They gotta wake up to being a part of a larger system and talk about actions that can get done when they realize they aren't dictators....
The debate occurred minutes from my house. I really wasn't paying attention ( I was following the Paterno thing). My son text'd me from OU's campus and told me Perry cr@pped the bed. I think that was well put. My ultra liberal son (arrghhhh) said Paul and Huntsman were the clear winners of the debate or the most bright as he put it.
MJ
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Yeah, with the cameras rolling and millions of people watching you, it's hard to imagine that you would ever get tongue-tied, even it is is one of your philosophies.
Take a look at the number of edited comments on this thread alone. Sitting in your comfy chair at home, taking your time, and yet some people still have to go back and change what they wrote.
I wonder how some of us would do in a public arena?
I am not defending him, just trying to look at it from another point of view.
You can't call a guy who can't even name the departments he wants to cut as "misrepresenting" something. The guy isn't bright, and clearly running for an office on notes rather than any real beliefs. To say it's the medias fault is not right. I'm for crucifying the media when it's called for (the yeeee-haaaaw thing comes to mind if you want to see really unfair media) but playing clips of a guy that can't name his own plans is simply good journalism. If your upset he looks like an idiot, I say blame the idiot.
As far as further deregulation and lower taxes to stimulate economy, I for one am not thrilled with the idea of turning this country into a race to the bottom where all our infrastructure falls apart because we can't tax, we can't cut defense spending, and then on top of it want to roll back safety, environmental, and financial regulations meant to protect us all in the name of trusting corporations to do the right thing and create jobs. If anything, the current financial frauds show how well further deregulation will work, all footed by taxpayer bailouts.
Although if we do all that, it will solve immigration. Crossing the border won't be necessary when you make America look like Mexico.
But, we are talking about a potential president. We don't need someone who starts stuttering just as we see the whites of their eyes.
Besides, he appeared more to be forgetting what he thought he had memorized. I want someone who can speak what they believe. You don't forget what you believe.
<< <i>As far as further deregulation and lower taxes to stimulate economy, I for one am not thrilled with the idea of turning this country into a race to the bottom where all our infrastructure falls apart because we can't tax, we can't cut defense spending, and then on top of it want to roll back safety, environmental, and financial regulations meant to protect us all in the name of trusting corporations to do the right thing and create jobs. If anything, the current financial frauds show how well further deregulation will work, all footed by taxpayer bailouts. >>
What we have now and what we are doing now obviously does not work. If it did our gold and our silver would be at year 2000 prices. Sensible regulation and smaller government will return wealth and power to the citizens. Additionally, we can defend this country with half of the current money spent, we did it for decades under the constant threat of nuclear war.
As Casey Stengel once said to the New York Mets: . "CAN'T NOBODY HERE PLAY THIS GAME???" .
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
Those that long for the 1950's, just bring back the 92% tax rate on those making $400,000 and more a year. Back when we had that, corporations didn't pay their CEO's and endless VP's multi-million dollar salaries with 100's of thousands of dollars in bonuses or more. When you cut out the incentive to rob from the company, guess what, the company will use that money to re-invest in itself through innovation and expansion which leads to more jobs. Worked in the 1950's, will work now too. The 1950's are part of the era referred to as the golden age of capitalism. The middle class swelled, and wealth was far more evenly distributed rather than our current state now. I'm not for taking away for working hard, but today's corporate salaries are completely out of line and amount to theft and it's crippling the economy through this lack of expansion, hiring, etc. The current economy is showing the effects of unlimited greed.
I know the "spread the wealth" thing is not popular, and I have a severe distaste for that line as well, but those that hate to see the papermill of money running non-stop by the Fed better realize if you want to reward the few at the top with ever growing piles of cash, then you have to make (literally) more cash. Better to limit the obscene salaries and income than otherwise. And yes, I'm advocating that 92% tax rate on the inflation adjusted income which today would be imposed then on those making more than $3,250,000 a year.
I'm waiting for all the arguments now that more than $3,250,000 a year salary is required for somebody to live well, enjoy life, and provide for themselves and their families at a lofty level. And before I hear the whole best and brightest will just leave for other countries arguments, the USA has a lot going for it other than this belief in $100 million dollar salaries for 3 years work. In fact, I'd say thinking otherwise is even more unpatriotic as it suggests your loyalties to the country would be fore sale. But maybe that's where we've arrived...everything, morals, beliefs, ethics, all come with price tags today.
<< <i>It happens to the best. It is tough on the road campaigning and preparing for an endless cycle of mind-numbing debates. Unfortunately, this unforced error will be replayed over and over by a media monster which is bent on destroying any and all Republican candidates this cycle. If Perry some how managed to become a front runner again, there would be more made up, trumped up, garbage stories that the major media outlets would stick on for weeks, just to destroy him as a person. The truth be damned. The media has a higher and more noble agenda to push, getting their guy back in for four more years, with plenty of regular folks still willing to buy their soap. With the media 80% behind him, plus $2 billion in big corporate and union money to spend on ads, the chief has a clear run.
You can't beat someone with nobody, and right now the reality is that the Republicans have a bunch of nobodies. Any Republican candidate above 10% in polling has major flaws that will be ripped open in the fall campaign, by a rabid and ugly media, plus about $2 billion worth of negative ads. >>
Exactly how did the media make Perry forget the things he wants to do? He's had bad debate performances, and this was the worst. The media (how dare they!) are quite understandably replaying the highlight of the debate. Geez---I thought it was the Ds who are supposed to be the blame everyone else party. Perry forgets his hard-held beliefs--that's the media's fault.
Cain makes advances at SEVERAL women, "forgets" that his organization reached settlements with them--that's the fault of the media and whoever 'leaked' the story. Mitt changes his position every other day--that's the media's fault. After, all they're the ones who recorded him contradicting himself. And on and on...
<< <i>Those that long for the 1950's, just bring back the 92% tax rate on those making $400,000 and more a year. Back when we had that, corporations didn't pay their CEO's and endless VP's multi-million dollar salaries with 100's of thousands of dollars in bonuses or more. When you cut out the incentive to rob from the company, guess what, the company will use that money to re-invest in itself through innovation and expansion which leads to more jobs. Worked in the 1950's, will work now too. The 1950's are part of the era referred to as the golden age of capitalism. The middle class swelled, and wealth was far more evenly distributed rather than our current state now. I'm not for taking away for working hard, but today's corporate salaries are completely out of line and amount to theft and it's crippling the economy through this lack of expansion, hiring, etc. The current economy is showing the effects of unlimited greed.
I know the "spread the wealth" thing is not popular, and I have a severe distaste for that line as well, but those that hate to see the papermill of money running non-stop by the Fed better realize if you want to reward the few at the top with ever growing piles of cash, then you have to make (literally) more cash. Better to limit the obscene salaries and income than otherwise. And yes, I'm advocating that 92% tax rate on the inflation adjusted income which today would be imposed then on those making more than $3,250,000 a year.
I'm waiting for all the arguments now that more than $3,250,000 a year salary is required for somebody to live well, enjoy life, and provide for themselves and their families at a lofty level. And before I hear the whole best and brightest will just leave for other countries arguments, the USA has a lot going for it other than this belief in $100 million dollar salaries for 3 years work. In fact, I'd say thinking otherwise is even more unpatriotic as it suggests your loyalties to the country would be fore sale. But maybe that's where we've arrived...everything, morals, beliefs, ethics, all come with price tags today.
For Congress, I'd say that's certainly true. >>
My only argument would be that it is not wise to penalize success, especially in a country that boasts it as the American Dream. The "more you make, the more penalty you pay" argument only destroys the drive to be more successful. I have come to realize that the primary reason I do not have the house and car that I feel I deserve and can afford is because the taxes on it are just not worth it.
But then again, I am a capitalist that believes the fruit of a man's labor belongs to him.
Please send our idiot back, the village needs him for local entertainment. And since we are still paying his salary I think you should all be charged admission to see him. Maybe that's an idea, put all his debates on Pay Per View, then we can afford to educate our students here in Texas.
Whatever it takes to get a vote, that's what he believes in that day. We knew when he started thinking about running seriously, all of a sudden he became a far right Christian to try to appeal to that demographic. Remember, this is the same guy that passed a rule that ALL teenage girls had to get a HPV innoculation. Now personally I think it's a good idea for all girls to get one, but I don't think it's ok for the government to force it. As for his current political bent, in order to get the tea party vote he has decided we need to get rid of essentially all federal rules. We'll let BP decide what's best for the environment and the health and safety of their workers. After all, if it's good for BP it must be good for the rest of us, right??? And we are over-regulating the poor bankers, they can hardly make any money now.
<< <i>My only argument would be that it is not wise to penalize success, especially in a country that boasts it as the American Dream. The "more you make, the more penalty you pay" argument only destroys the drive to be more successful. >>
I'd really like to meet the guy who stopped trying to make more money because his tax bracket might increase. I always hear about him, but I've never actually seen him. There's decent arguments against taxes, but this ain't one of them.
<< <i>My only argument would be that it is not wise to penalize success, especially in a country that boasts it as the American Dream. The "more you make, the more penalty you pay" argument only destroys the drive to be more successful. >>
I'd really like to meet the guy who stopped trying to make more money because his tax bracket might increase. I always hear about him, but I've never actually seen him. There's decent arguments against taxes, but this ain't one of them. >>
Nothing was said about tax brackets and it wasn't an argument against taxes. It was an argument against singling out successful people to pay more than they currently pay. The reference was about increasing their current tax rate because of their wealth as is being suggested by those that live off of their tax dollars who think the "rich" should pay more. Hell, if they were supporting me with tax dollars I'd also be screaming that they should pay more.
Peter Schiff recently testified before congress about how increasing taxes and regulation are keeping him from expanding his business. As he pointed out this stifles job creation throughout the entire business community.
But, since you brought it up, I personally make decisions that prevent me from advancing to the next tax bracket. For example I will stop making sales near the end of the year, have done it the past three years. I'm self employed and have that liberty. Why not just wait until the beginning of the next year and keep more of my profit. There are people out there that are not forced to live paycheck to paycheck and have this luxury.
The point of my post was that if you keep taking a bigger piece of the pie from those that are already paying more taxes than most people you will discourage them from making their pie bigger. Keep in mind that their pie in many case supports a lot of employees that get to enjoy their own pie. As the big pie grows so do the little pies. And, it works the other way around.
<< <i>330 million people in this country and this is all we have to choose from? >>
I'm with ya.'
can't believe Bachmann is still on the list.
did you see her after the debate? she started out talking about simplifying the tax code, and by the time she finished talking she made it seem like such a complex task!!!
<< <i> he appeared more to be forgetting what he thought he had memorized. I want someone who can speak what they believe. You don't forget what you believe.
yup, if anything, he should fire every one of his advisors and decide what he really thinks. >>
he's a parrot of the republican philosophy of the day.
get rid of the uhhhhh
uhhhhhh
what would be bad for business here?
IRS? no wait... cant do that.
uhhhh....
EPA! thanks, friendly competitor!
Look how great the Chinese economy is and they don't give a crap about the environment.
Of course you can't drink the water unless you want a hospital visit.
the air hangs black with soot in large cities (see it myself!)
but business is GREAT!
I guess I'm just a tree hugger and bug hugger.
I'd like to hear from him what other federal laws and regulations are inhibiting business. co-mingling of proprietary and customer account funds? Awwww..... MF global was just a one off! let's not rush to judgement. think of the flexibility and profit potential co-mingling offers! laissez-faire is what is taught in school and screw the past experiences of criminals!
<< <i>tax cuts along with sensible business deregulation will do two things: 1. Put more spending money in the consumer's pocket = greater demand for goods and services = more employment 2. Reduce business costs = lower prices and more financial resources to invest in the business
to justify tax cuts gov. spending needs to be reduced. >>
The so-called Bush Tax Cuts have been the law of the land for almost a decade. So where are all the jobs? Huge corporations and the very wealthy simply are not paying their fair share of taxes. But don't get me started...
I'd really like to meet the guy who stopped trying to make more money because his tax bracket might increase.
We specifically elected to not hire workers because of the taxes, regulations, and government hassles. It's fair to say we stopped trying to grow the business and make more money.
And secondly, I'd vote for a 92% tax on the wealthy if 92% of the people paid taxes. Everyone should contribute.
Huge corporations and the very wealthy simply are not paying their fair share of taxes
You still believe that drivel?
48% of the citizenry pay no income tax. the upper 50% of the wage earners pay @97% of all tax collections. Obama's Job Council Head Jeffrey Immelt CEO of GE pays zero corp. taxes....explain that one! He's also taking jobs and infrastructure to China on a fast track. The USA has the highest corporate tax.....no wonder corporations go overseas for employees!!! You want to raise the corp rate???? Good luck with that!
<< <i>I'd really like to meet the guy who stopped trying to make more money because his tax bracket might increase.
We specifically elected to not hire workers because of the taxes, regulations, and government hassles. It's fair to say we stopped trying to grow the business and make more money.
And secondly, I'd vote for a 92% tax on the wealthy if 92% of the people paid taxes. Everyone should contribute. >>
Whatever your reasons were, I didn't hear you say that the reason you didn't expand was because the extra profits would be taxed.
[But, since you brought it up, I personally make decisions that prevent me from advancing to the next tax bracket. For example I will stop making sales near the end of the year, have done it the past three years. I'm self employed and have that liberty. Why not just wait until the beginning of the next year and keep more of my profit. >>
So you deferred the income (for a short time), you didn't not take it. Like I said, I'd love to see the businessman who saw an opportunity to increase profit but decided not to do so because the profit would be taxed.
<< <i>[But, since you brought it up, I personally make decisions that prevent me from advancing to the next tax bracket. For example I will stop making sales near the end of the year, have done it the past three years. I'm self employed and have that liberty. Why not just wait until the beginning of the next year and keep more of my profit. >>
<< <i>So you deferred the income (for a short time), you didn't not take it. Like I said, I'd love to see the businessman who saw an opportunity to increase profit but decided not to do so because the profit would be taxed. >>
It's not about being taxed. It's about being taxed at higher rates because of success. I'm a businessman and I have an opportunity to increase profit at the end of each year and I choose not to because all of my profit would be taxed at a higher rate upon entry into a higher tax bracket. And yes, I consider this a penalty of success. I can defer the sales until the following year and reduce my tax liability on them, thus increasing my net. Opportunities to increase profit are not turned down because they would be taxed, they are turned down because they, and all profit for the year, would be taxed at a higher rate.
You won't see a businessman who sees an opportunity to increase profit but decides not to because the profit would be taxed. You will see many a businessman who will avoid some profit not only because it puts him in a higher bracket at a higher tax rate, but it also subjects all of his profit for that year to the higher tax rate. If the increase in profit is greater than the increased tax libability resulting from a higher tax rate, the smart thing to do is take the additional profit but only after weighing non-monetary costs required to earn it.
Like I said, I'd love to see the businessman who saw an opportunity to increase profit but decided not to do so because the profit would be taxed.
If you studied business, you would have encountered in economics the "law of diminishing returns" and would understand that any intelligent businessman will not invest in a business or an enterprise when there is a lower and lower payoff for the same amount of effort.
If you find yourself in that situation, you will understand what that means.
The progressive tax system punishes incentive and performance and rewards dependence on government handouts. You decide. I already have.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
<< <i> Nothing was said about tax brackets and it wasn't an argument against taxes. It was an argument against singling out successful people to pay more than they currently pay. The reference was about increasing their current tax rate because of their wealth as is being suggested by those that live off of their tax dollars who think the "rich" should pay more. Hell, if they were supporting me with tax dollars I'd also be screaming that they should pay more.
The point of my post was that if you keep taking a bigger piece of the pie from those that are already paying more taxes than most people you will discourage them from making their pie bigger. Keep in mind that their pie in many case supports a lot of employees that get to enjoy their own pie. As the big pie grows so do the little pies. And, it works the other way around. >>
I specifically talked about tax brackets and taxing any personal income above $3,250,000 at 92%. This was not about singling out successful people, it was about the system that currently promotes corporations and those controlling them increasingly robbing from the till by paying super high wages and bonuses to those at the very top. Thus, the money doesn't get rolled into the business in innovation, updates, research, or expansion, but personal pockets of those that are greedy. You're the one jumping to the conclusion anyone making this argument just lives off of "their" tax dollars. And I like the quotes around rich...as if someone making over $3 million a year isn't, that somehow they're being unfairly categorized.
Again, we've had it in the past during the golden age of capitalism, why can't we now? How big a blinders do you have that you think those salaries are justified, that you can't see it contributes to the reduction in the pie you're so concerned about through companies not having capital to invest, or doing so foolishly to qualify for higher bonuses?
I liked Reagan. I voted for Reagan. I thought trickle down made sense. Looking around at the greed that's everywhere today, I think we can all agree it does NOT. But I look at the 50s and you know what, that tax rate DOES make sense and DID work.
<< <i>You won't see a businessman who sees an opportunity to increase profit but decides not to because the profit would be taxed. You will see many a businessman who will avoid some profit not only because it puts him in a higher bracket at a higher tax rate, but it also subjects all of his profit for that year to the higher tax rate. If the increase in profit is greater than the increased tax libability resulting from a higher tax rate, the smart thing to do is take the additional profit but only after weighing non-monetary costs required to earn it. >>
You need schooled in economics then, and you can thank me later for the new house and car you think you deserve since you short yourself profit every year, according to your words, to avoid paying the higher taxes. This is not some Scrooge McDuck accounting land here in the USA where if you earn a $1 more and bump into another tax bracket then you owe $30,000 more in taxes. And I quote:
Moving into a higher tax bracket only increases the rate of tax paid on the last dollars you earn. Suppose you're filing single, your old salary was $30,000 a year and your new salary is $33,000 a year. According to the IRS's 2007 federal tax rate schedules, when your salary was $30,000, your marginal tax rate was 15%. With a salary of $33,000, your marginal tax rate is now 25%.
The key to unlocking this myth is the word "marginal". In this scenario, your first $31,850 of income is still taxed the same way it was before you got your raise. With a $30,000 income, your take-home will be $25,891.25. If you make $33,000, you will take home $28,326.25. This is because only the extra $1,150 above $31,850 is taxed at 25% - not the whole $33,000
Corporate taxes are not the same as individuals. I'll say that again. I'm not saying any profit of a corporation above $3.25 million is taxed at 92%, I'm saying individuals are at this rate.
<< <i>Like I said, I'd love to see the businessman who saw an opportunity to increase profit but decided not to do so because the profit would be taxed.
If you studied business, you would have encountered in economics the "law of diminishing returns" and would understand that any intelligent businessman will not invest in a business or an enterprise when there is a lower and lower payoff for the same amount of effort.
If you find yourself in that situation, you will understand what that means. >>
I understand what it means, but you're pretending that the small increase in tax would truly deter someone from making the extra money. So if your first $100K of income falls into the 30% bracket and the next $100K or next $1M falls into a 35% marginal rate, who is going to stop working because of the increase? Because you pocket slightly less of the 2nd $100K, you're going to forgo the income? That's ridiculous.
There are reasons to argue against taxes, but that a few percent above the current rates equates to "punishing success" is ludicrous.
<< <i>I specifically talked about tax brackets and taxing any personal income above $3,250,000 at 92%. >>
To take 92% of anyone's income for the common good is nothing less than socialism. Boils down to choosing socialism over capitalism. I'll pick the one where those that have motivation and drive are not subject to supporting those that lack enough of it to provide for themselves. Your choice is obvious - a government limitation on wealth. What's next, controlling the size of his house? How about we dictate where he shops, what he eats and what he wears. Maybe we can even have a special tax for those that can afford a live Christmas tree.
Why pay taxes at all when you can stay home at the expense of those that do. We have a whole generation of kids that truely believe it is the government's role to provide for them. Through no fault of their own many of them know of no other lifestyle.
It was hard to believe, and he checked his notes and couldn't even find it. It's been almost over for him for awhile now and this sealed it. Call it "not ready for prime time or whatever", but it's over.
One thing I learned early a long time ago in sales...ya don't have to necessarily know the competitor's products, but ya dam well better know your own product...and he didn't even know his own policy?
There are reasons to argue against taxes, but that a few percent above the current rates equates to "punishing success" is ludicrous. >>
I have a far left friend, who talks like you argue. In her arguments she talks about another 1% or 5% in taxes. The reality is that the current chief has proposed much more than that at different times. If all the chief's proposals passed, the total tax bill for some might well double. A 100% increase is not a few percent. Perhaps you are talking about one small part of one small proposal. Again, look at all that has been proposed, if it all passed, it would be a big chunk, not a small one for a lot of Americans.
To put it plainer language, some pundit pointed out that we are now faced with a "trophy" generation, grown up. This is a generation where every kid gets a trophy for participating, even if they are the worst player on the worst team. Now that those kids are grown up, there are politicians calling to give those grown ups trophies. Except, the grown up trophies aren't $5 in price, they are more like $50,000 or $500,000 or more in price. Many lefties don't understand why all those grown up kids can't get a "trophy." A nice big house, a full guaranteed pension, a high paying job, all those trophies, no matter how poorly they spent their time in school, no matter how poor their market or financial choices, no matter how much debt they chose to take on. No matter that they took out $100k or $200k in loans to get an Art History degree, or a degree in ancient French anthropology, or like one friend's kid was thinking of doing a degree in Songwriting.
I knew another person that treated their student loans like an ATM. Need money to spend for a trip or a car? Take out another student loan. And now the chief is talking about further rewarding such abusers of the system. There is some logic to it, but it is painful to watch those wheels turn.
I don't argue politics with my far lefty friend. There isn't enough common ground to have any kind of argument. Most political arguments degenerate into a shouting match with name calling after a bit. Ludicrous is an example of that. Besides lefties have the full force of the popular media behind them, so they can quote slanted article after slanted article to back their case. Unfortunately, the assumptions, the postulates about what is, and isn't, and the facts (a few percent vs. a 100% increase in some taxes) are too wide a gulf to have any kind of civil discussion.
There's tax brackets for a reason. Much as a couple people seem to think everyone makes or "thinks" they deserve $50k to $100k jobs, there's plenty of folks out there with no health care working jobs that pay closer to $20k per year. These jobs won't just go away, and not everyone can work a high paying job. Tax brackets HELP to make it so a person at a lower revenue can actually live. They don't have to pay the same tax rate as someone making over $3 million, and pretending that it's "fair" or the same thing by doing a flat tax is disingenuous at best. What you're really saying with that is everyone should pay a tax lower than they do now, including those making $3 million a year and above. I'm sorry, but govt and services can not function in this country on that tax revenue. That's just more greed talk.
And yes, talking about fair and taxes and economy with someone so far mistaken as to think their entire yearly profit gets taxed at a higher rate if they enter another tax bracket says loads right there. If you own your own business, you better figure out the tax code before you start lecturing others on how it should operate because you clearly don't understand marginal rates.
<< <i>And yes, talking about fair and taxes and economy with someone so far mistaken as to think their entire yearly profit gets taxed at a higher rate if they enter another tax bracket says loads right there. If you own your own business, you better figure out the tax code before you start lecturing others on how it should operate because you clearly don't understand marginal rates. >>
Understanding the tax code is no problem. Getting you to understand this seems to be the problem: One's entire yearly income is taxed at an overall higher rate when that person moves into the next tax bracket. While the income in the lower bracket remains taxed at the lower rate, the higher tax rate on the additional income results in a net higher rate for all of the income. If the first $50K is taxed at 20% and an additional $10K in income gets taxed at 25%, the net rate on all of the income becomes more than the initial 20%. In other words the additional 25% rate on part of the income raises the overall rate on all of the income. In this scenario the individual will pay 20% in taxes if he makes $50k and will pay more than 20% in taxes if he makes $60K. The end result is that if one moves into a higher rate tax bracket his entire yearly income gets taxed at a higher rate. End of lecture.
<< <i> There's tax brackets for a reason. Much as a couple people seem to think everyone makes or "thinks" they deserve $50k to $100k jobs, there's plenty of folks out there with no health care working jobs that pay closer to $20k per year. These jobs won't just go away, and not everyone can work a high paying job. Tax brackets HELP to make it so a person at a lower revenue can actually live. They don't have to pay the same tax rate as someone making over $3 million, and pretending that it's "fair" or the same thing by doing a flat tax is disingenuous at best. What you're really saying with that is everyone should pay a tax lower than they do now, including those making $3 million a year and above. I'm sorry, but govt and services can not function in this country on that tax revenue. That's just more greed talk. >>
The millionaire receives no more benefit from his tax dollars than does the $20K year citizen. It could be argued that the lower the income the higher the dependency on tax sponsored services and benefits. For those that receive the most benefit from tax dollars to expect those that receive the least benefit of tax dollars to foot more of the tax bill points exactly to where the greed is.
Goldbully
Posts: 16,974 ✭✭✭✭✭
Comments
Rampant currency debasement will be the most important investment trend of this decade, and it will devastate most people.
- Nick Giambruno Buy dollar insurance now, because the policy will cost more as the dollar becomes worth less.
Here's a warning parable for coin collectors...
You can't beat someone with nobody, and right now the reality is that the Republicans have a bunch of nobodies. Any Republican candidate above 10% in polling has major flaws that will be ripped open in the fall campaign, by a rabid and ugly media, plus about $2 billion worth of negative ads.
Rampant currency debasement will be the most important investment trend of this decade, and it will devastate most people.
- Nick Giambruno Buy dollar insurance now, because the policy will cost more as the dollar becomes worth less.
as president (the one man job that it is) I will fire Bernanke.... one man in the Fed controlling things, not the market?!?!?! *scoff*
ooops.
(one man doesn't make all the decisions in the Fed nor Fed Gov't, and the market had fed funds rate down near zero before the Fed declared they would hold them in a 0%-.25% range... where the market already had it. Guessed whoever missed those facts.)
we can all agree we like lower taxes.
but, similar to the bailout of the banks, you can give these guys all the money in the world, but you can't require they spend it.
tax cut them to zero.
Where do I think it will go? The bank!
We need a new way to spur growth instead of the "tax cut to growth" idea. (we can't make them spend the tax cuts. You want growth? propose a different idea. You want lower taxes? fine. just don't expect the companies with extra cash to spend it... not in this economy)
1. Put more spending money in the consumer's pocket = greater demand for goods and services = more employment
2. Reduce business costs = lower prices and more financial resources to invest in the business
to justify tax cuts gov. spending needs to be reduced.
Rampant currency debasement will be the most important investment trend of this decade, and it will devastate most people.
- Nick Giambruno Buy dollar insurance now, because the policy will cost more as the dollar becomes worth less.
cheap labor doesn't count?
sheesh....
And Newt finally said something I liked.... as far as hacking and stealing IP.... no one has a good answer for that.
<< <i>It happens to the best. It is tough on the road campaigning and preparing for an endless cycle of mind-numbing debates. Unfortunately, this unforced error will be replayed over and over by a media monster which is bent on destroying any and all Republican candidates this cycle. If Perry some how managed to become a front runner again, there would be more made up, trumped up, garbage stories that the major media outlets would stick on for weeks, just to destroy him as a person. The truth be damned. The media has a higher and more noble agenda to push, getting their guy back in for four more years, with plenty of regular folks still willing to buy their soap. With the media 80% behind him, plus $2 billion in big corporate and union money to spend on ads, the chief has a clear run.
You can't beat someone with nobody, and right now the reality is that the Republicans have a bunch of nobodies. Any Republican candidate above 10% in polling has major flaws that will be ripped open in the fall campaign, by a rabid and ugly media, plus about $2 billion worth of negative ads. >>
No Republican candidate will be good enough for the liberal media. The same media will cover up, minimize and outright misrepresent the failures of the Dear Leader. They will pull out all the stops in 2012 to destroy anyone the GOP nominates.
The equation only changes when people stop trusting the media and making their own decisions. You can only claim that sewage is vanilla ice cream for so long. This is happening with the Cain story. GOP voters are fed up with the endless attacks on their candidates. The media is frustrated they cannot take out Cain.
Its not hopeless. The landslides of 1980 and 1984 were accomplished despite the near strangehold on power held by the media elites. Alternative media did not exist. Dan Rather's "fake but true" National Guard story of 2004 was proven to be a fraud by the alternative media. November 2010 was a fine example that they cannot exert their old power.
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/gold/liberty-head-2-1-gold-major-sets/liberty-head-2-1-gold-basic-set-circulation-strikes-1840-1907-cac/alltimeset/268163
eventually, things could always be better so the president takes the hit.
I agree that slowly people are waking up to the endless bickering, finger pointing, and out right dirty politics and beginning to see through it all. The faster it happens the better.
I just wish all the candidates from both sides would act and talk like they aren't going to be dictator of the us, instead of president and only one of the three branches. Of course the media doesn't help in continuing the "what are you going to do" treatment. They gotta wake up to being a part of a larger system and talk about actions that can get done when they realize they aren't dictators....
In Texas, they call George Bush "the smart one".
Proud recipient of two "You Suck" awards
The debate occurred minutes from my house. I really wasn't paying attention ( I was following the Paterno thing). My son text'd me from OU's campus and told me Perry cr@pped the bed. I think that was well put. My ultra liberal son (arrghhhh) said Paul and Huntsman were the clear winners of the debate or the most bright as he put it.
MJ
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Take a look at the number of edited comments on this thread alone. Sitting in your comfy chair at home, taking your time, and yet some people still have to go back and change what they wrote.
I wonder how some of us would do in a public arena?
I am not defending him, just trying to look at it from another point of view.
As far as further deregulation and lower taxes to stimulate economy, I for one am not thrilled with the idea of turning this country into a race to the bottom where all our infrastructure falls apart because we can't tax, we can't cut defense spending, and then on top of it want to roll back safety, environmental, and financial regulations meant to protect us all in the name of trusting corporations to do the right thing and create jobs. If anything, the current financial frauds show how well further deregulation will work, all footed by taxpayer bailouts.
Although if we do all that, it will solve immigration. Crossing the border won't be necessary when you make America look like Mexico.
Besides, he appeared more to be forgetting what he thought he had memorized. I want someone who can speak what they believe. You don't forget what you believe.
Rampant currency debasement will be the most important investment trend of this decade, and it will devastate most people.
- Nick Giambruno Buy dollar insurance now, because the policy will cost more as the dollar becomes worth less.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
<< <i>As far as further deregulation and lower taxes to stimulate economy, I for one am not thrilled with the idea of turning this country into a race to the bottom where all our infrastructure falls apart because we can't tax, we can't cut defense spending, and then on top of it want to roll back safety, environmental, and financial regulations meant to protect us all in the name of trusting corporations to do the right thing and create jobs. If anything, the current financial frauds show how well further deregulation will work, all footed by taxpayer bailouts. >>
What we have now and what we are doing now obviously does not work. If it did our gold and our silver would be at year 2000 prices. Sensible regulation and smaller government will return wealth and power to the citizens. Additionally, we can defend this country with half of the current money spent, we did it for decades under the constant threat of nuclear war.
Rampant currency debasement will be the most important investment trend of this decade, and it will devastate most people.
- Nick Giambruno Buy dollar insurance now, because the policy will cost more as the dollar becomes worth less.
.
"CAN'T NOBODY HERE PLAY THIS GAME???"
.
yup, if anything, he should fire every one of his advisors and decide what he really thinks.
I knew it would happen.
MANY positive BST Transactions
I know the "spread the wealth" thing is not popular, and I have a severe distaste for that line as well, but those that hate to see the papermill of money running non-stop by the Fed better realize if you want to reward the few at the top with ever growing piles of cash, then you have to make (literally) more cash. Better to limit the obscene salaries and income than otherwise. And yes, I'm advocating that 92% tax rate on the inflation adjusted income which today would be imposed then on those making more than $3,250,000 a year.
I'm waiting for all the arguments now that more than $3,250,000 a year salary is required for somebody to live well, enjoy life, and provide for themselves and their families at a lofty level. And before I hear the whole best and brightest will just leave for other countries arguments, the USA has a lot going for it other than this belief in $100 million dollar salaries for 3 years work. In fact, I'd say thinking otherwise is even more unpatriotic as it suggests your loyalties to the country would be fore sale. But maybe that's where we've arrived...everything, morals, beliefs, ethics, all come with price tags today.
For Congress, I'd say that's certainly true.
<< <i>It happens to the best. It is tough on the road campaigning and preparing for an endless cycle of mind-numbing debates. Unfortunately, this unforced error will be replayed over and over by a media monster which is bent on destroying any and all Republican candidates this cycle. If Perry some how managed to become a front runner again, there would be more made up, trumped up, garbage stories that the major media outlets would stick on for weeks, just to destroy him as a person. The truth be damned. The media has a higher and more noble agenda to push, getting their guy back in for four more years, with plenty of regular folks still willing to buy their soap. With the media 80% behind him, plus $2 billion in big corporate and union money to spend on ads, the chief has a clear run.
You can't beat someone with nobody, and right now the reality is that the Republicans have a bunch of nobodies. Any Republican candidate above 10% in polling has major flaws that will be ripped open in the fall campaign, by a rabid and ugly media, plus about $2 billion worth of negative ads. >>
Exactly how did the media make Perry forget the things he wants to do? He's had bad debate performances, and this was the worst. The media (how dare they!) are quite understandably replaying the highlight of the debate. Geez---I thought it was the Ds who are supposed to be the blame everyone else party. Perry forgets his hard-held beliefs--that's the media's fault.
Cain makes advances at SEVERAL women, "forgets" that his organization reached settlements with them--that's the fault of the media and whoever 'leaked' the story. Mitt changes his position every other day--that's the media's fault. After, all they're the ones who recorded him contradicting himself. And on and on...
<< <i>Those that long for the 1950's, just bring back the 92% tax rate on those making $400,000 and more a year. Back when we had that, corporations didn't pay their CEO's and endless VP's multi-million dollar salaries with 100's of thousands of dollars in bonuses or more. When you cut out the incentive to rob from the company, guess what, the company will use that money to re-invest in itself through innovation and expansion which leads to more jobs. Worked in the 1950's, will work now too. The 1950's are part of the era referred to as the golden age of capitalism. The middle class swelled, and wealth was far more evenly distributed rather than our current state now. I'm not for taking away for working hard, but today's corporate salaries are completely out of line and amount to theft and it's crippling the economy through this lack of expansion, hiring, etc. The current economy is showing the effects of unlimited greed.
I know the "spread the wealth" thing is not popular, and I have a severe distaste for that line as well, but those that hate to see the papermill of money running non-stop by the Fed better realize if you want to reward the few at the top with ever growing piles of cash, then you have to make (literally) more cash. Better to limit the obscene salaries and income than otherwise. And yes, I'm advocating that 92% tax rate on the inflation adjusted income which today would be imposed then on those making more than $3,250,000 a year.
I'm waiting for all the arguments now that more than $3,250,000 a year salary is required for somebody to live well, enjoy life, and provide for themselves and their families at a lofty level. And before I hear the whole best and brightest will just leave for other countries arguments, the USA has a lot going for it other than this belief in $100 million dollar salaries for 3 years work. In fact, I'd say thinking otherwise is even more unpatriotic as it suggests your loyalties to the country would be fore sale. But maybe that's where we've arrived...everything, morals, beliefs, ethics, all come with price tags today.
For Congress, I'd say that's certainly true. >>
My only argument would be that it is not wise to penalize success, especially in a country that boasts it as the American Dream. The "more you make, the more penalty you pay" argument only destroys the drive to be more successful. I have come to realize that the primary reason I do not have the house and car that I feel I deserve and can afford is because the taxes on it are just not worth it.
But then again, I am a capitalist that believes the fruit of a man's labor belongs to him.
Rampant currency debasement will be the most important investment trend of this decade, and it will devastate most people.
- Nick Giambruno Buy dollar insurance now, because the policy will cost more as the dollar becomes worth less.
Whatever it takes to get a vote, that's what he believes in that day. We knew when he started thinking about running seriously, all of a sudden he became a far right Christian to try to appeal to that demographic. Remember, this is the same guy that passed a rule that ALL teenage girls had to get a HPV innoculation. Now personally I think it's a good idea for all girls to get one, but I don't think it's ok for the government to force it. As for his current political bent, in order to get the tea party vote he has decided we need to get rid of essentially all federal rules. We'll let BP decide what's best for the environment and the health and safety of their workers. After all, if it's good for BP it must be good for the rest of us, right??? And we are over-regulating the poor bankers, they can hardly make any money now.
World Collection
British Collection
German States Collection
<< <i>As Casey Stengel once said to the New York Mets:
.
"CAN'T NOBODY HERE PLAY THIS GAME???"
. >>
At my home I say the same thing about the Metropolitans at least several times each doleful season.
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/gold/liberty-head-2-1-gold-major-sets/liberty-head-2-1-gold-basic-set-circulation-strikes-1840-1907-cac/alltimeset/268163
Josh Brolin just informed that the sequel to the movie "W" has been cancelled ........
<< <i>My only argument would be that it is not wise to penalize success, especially in a country that boasts it as the American Dream. The "more you make, the more penalty you pay" argument only destroys the drive to be more successful. >>
I'd really like to meet the guy who stopped trying to make more money because his tax bracket might increase. I always hear about him, but I've never actually seen him. There's decent arguments against taxes, but this ain't one of them.
<< <i>
<< <i>My only argument would be that it is not wise to penalize success, especially in a country that boasts it as the American Dream. The "more you make, the more penalty you pay" argument only destroys the drive to be more successful. >>
I'd really like to meet the guy who stopped trying to make more money because his tax bracket might increase. I always hear about him, but I've never actually seen him. There's decent arguments against taxes, but this ain't one of them. >>
Nothing was said about tax brackets and it wasn't an argument against taxes. It was an argument against singling out successful people to pay more than they currently pay. The reference was about increasing their current tax rate because of their wealth as is being suggested by those that live off of their tax dollars who think the "rich" should pay more. Hell, if they were supporting me with tax dollars I'd also be screaming that they should pay more.
Peter Schiff recently testified before congress about how increasing taxes and regulation are keeping him from expanding his business. As he pointed out this stifles job creation throughout the entire business community.
Schiff tells congress what they don't want to hear
But, since you brought it up, I personally make decisions that prevent me from advancing to the next tax bracket. For example I will stop making sales near the end of the year, have done it the past three years. I'm self employed and have that liberty. Why not just wait until the beginning of the next year and keep more of my profit. There are people out there that are not forced to live paycheck to paycheck and have this luxury.
The point of my post was that if you keep taking a bigger piece of the pie from those that are already paying more taxes than most people you will discourage them from making their pie bigger. Keep in mind that their pie in many case supports a lot of employees that get to enjoy their own pie. As the big pie grows so do the little pies. And, it works the other way around.
Rampant currency debasement will be the most important investment trend of this decade, and it will devastate most people.
- Nick Giambruno Buy dollar insurance now, because the policy will cost more as the dollar becomes worth less.
<< <i>330 million people in this country and this is all we have to choose from? >>
I'm with ya.'
can't believe Bachmann is still on the list.
did you see her after the debate? she started out talking about simplifying the tax code, and by the time she finished talking she made it seem like such a complex task!!!
omg.
<< <i> he appeared more to be forgetting what he thought he had memorized. I want someone who can speak what they believe. You don't forget what you believe.
yup, if anything, he should fire every one of his advisors and decide what he really thinks. >>
he's a parrot of the republican philosophy of the day.
get rid of the uhhhhh
uhhhhhh
what would be bad for business here?
IRS? no wait... cant do that.
uhhhh....
EPA! thanks, friendly competitor!
Look how great the Chinese economy is and they don't give a crap about the environment.
Of course you can't drink the water unless you want a hospital visit.
the air hangs black with soot in large cities (see it myself!)
but business is GREAT!
I guess I'm just a tree hugger and bug hugger.
I'd like to hear from him what other federal laws and regulations are inhibiting business. co-mingling of proprietary and customer account funds? Awwww..... MF global was just a one off! let's not rush to judgement. think of the flexibility and profit potential co-mingling offers! laissez-faire is what is taught in school and screw the past experiences of criminals!
<< <i>tax cuts along with sensible business deregulation will do two things:
1. Put more spending money in the consumer's pocket = greater demand for goods and services = more employment
2. Reduce business costs = lower prices and more financial resources to invest in the business
to justify tax cuts gov. spending needs to be reduced. >>
The so-called Bush Tax Cuts have been the law of the land for almost a decade.
So where are all the jobs?
Huge corporations and the very wealthy simply are not paying their fair share of taxes.
But don't get me started...
We specifically elected to not hire workers because of the taxes, regulations, and government hassles. It's fair to say we stopped trying to grow the business and make more money.
And secondly, I'd vote for a 92% tax on the wealthy if 92% of the people paid taxes. Everyone should contribute.
You still believe that drivel?
48% of the citizenry pay no income tax.
the upper 50% of the wage earners pay @97% of all tax collections.
Obama's Job Council Head Jeffrey Immelt CEO of GE pays zero corp. taxes....explain that one!
He's also taking jobs and infrastructure to China on a fast track.
The USA has the highest corporate tax.....no wonder corporations go overseas for employees!!!
You want to raise the corp rate???? Good luck with that!
<< <i>I'd really like to meet the guy who stopped trying to make more money because his tax bracket might increase.
We specifically elected to not hire workers because of the taxes, regulations, and government hassles. It's fair to say we stopped trying to grow the business and make more money.
And secondly, I'd vote for a 92% tax on the wealthy if 92% of the people paid taxes. Everyone should contribute. >>
Whatever your reasons were, I didn't hear you say that the reason you didn't expand was because the extra profits would be taxed.
[But, since you brought it up, I personally make decisions that prevent me from advancing to the next tax bracket. For example I will stop making sales near the end of the year, have done it the past three years. I'm self employed and have that liberty. Why not just wait until the beginning of the next year and keep more of my profit. >>
So you deferred the income (for a short time), you didn't not take it.
Like I said, I'd love to see the businessman who saw an opportunity to increase profit but decided not to do so because the profit would be taxed.
<< <i>[But, since you brought it up, I personally make decisions that prevent me from advancing to the next tax bracket. For example I will stop making sales near the end of the year, have done it the past three years. I'm self employed and have that liberty. Why not just wait until the beginning of the next year and keep more of my profit. >>
<< <i>So you deferred the income (for a short time), you didn't not take it.
Like I said, I'd love to see the businessman who saw an opportunity to increase profit but decided not to do so because the profit would be taxed. >>
It's not about being taxed. It's about being taxed at higher rates because of success. I'm a businessman and I have an opportunity to increase profit at the end of each year and I choose not to because all of my profit would be taxed at a higher rate upon entry into a higher tax bracket. And yes, I consider this a penalty of success. I can defer the sales until the following year and reduce my tax liability on them, thus increasing my net. Opportunities to increase profit are not turned down because they would be taxed, they are turned down because they, and all profit for the year, would be taxed at a higher rate.
You won't see a businessman who sees an opportunity to increase profit but decides not to because the profit would be taxed. You will see many a businessman who will avoid some profit not only because it puts him in a higher bracket at a higher tax rate, but it also subjects all of his profit for that year to the higher tax rate. If the increase in profit is greater than the increased tax libability resulting from a higher tax rate, the smart thing to do is take the additional profit but only after weighing non-monetary costs required to earn it.
Rampant currency debasement will be the most important investment trend of this decade, and it will devastate most people.
- Nick Giambruno Buy dollar insurance now, because the policy will cost more as the dollar becomes worth less.
If you studied business, you would have encountered in economics the "law of diminishing returns" and would understand that any intelligent businessman will not invest in a business or an enterprise when there is a lower and lower payoff for the same amount of effort.
If you find yourself in that situation, you will understand what that means.
The progressive tax system punishes incentive and performance and rewards dependence on government handouts. You decide. I already have.
I knew it would happen.
<< <i>
Nothing was said about tax brackets and it wasn't an argument against taxes. It was an argument against singling out successful people to pay more than they currently pay. The reference was about increasing their current tax rate because of their wealth as is being suggested by those that live off of their tax dollars who think the "rich" should pay more. Hell, if they were supporting me with tax dollars I'd also be screaming that they should pay more.
The point of my post was that if you keep taking a bigger piece of the pie from those that are already paying more taxes than most people you will discourage them from making their pie bigger. Keep in mind that their pie in many case supports a lot of employees that get to enjoy their own pie. As the big pie grows so do the little pies. And, it works the other way around. >>
I specifically talked about tax brackets and taxing any personal income above $3,250,000 at 92%. This was not about singling out successful people, it was about the system that currently promotes corporations and those controlling them increasingly robbing from the till by paying super high wages and bonuses to those at the very top. Thus, the money doesn't get rolled into the business in innovation, updates, research, or expansion, but personal pockets of those that are greedy. You're the one jumping to the conclusion anyone making this argument just lives off of "their" tax dollars. And I like the quotes around rich...as if someone making over $3 million a year isn't, that somehow they're being unfairly categorized.
Again, we've had it in the past during the golden age of capitalism, why can't we now? How big a blinders do you have that you think those salaries are justified, that you can't see it contributes to the reduction in the pie you're so concerned about through companies not having capital to invest, or doing so foolishly to qualify for higher bonuses?
I liked Reagan. I voted for Reagan. I thought trickle down made sense. Looking around at the greed that's everywhere today, I think we can all agree it does NOT. But I look at the 50s and you know what, that tax rate DOES make sense and DID work.
<< <i>You won't see a businessman who sees an opportunity to increase profit but decides not to because the profit would be taxed. You will see many a businessman who will avoid some profit not only because it puts him in a higher bracket at a higher tax rate, but it also subjects all of his profit for that year to the higher tax rate. If the increase in profit is greater than the increased tax libability resulting from a higher tax rate, the smart thing to do is take the additional profit but only after weighing non-monetary costs required to earn it. >>
You need schooled in economics then, and you can thank me later for the new house and car you think you deserve since you short yourself profit every year, according to your words, to avoid paying the higher taxes. This is not some Scrooge McDuck accounting land here in the USA where if you earn a $1 more and bump into another tax bracket then you owe $30,000 more in taxes. And I quote:
Moving into a higher tax bracket only increases the rate of tax paid on the last dollars you earn. Suppose you're filing single, your old salary was $30,000 a year and your new salary is $33,000 a year. According to the IRS's 2007 federal tax rate schedules, when your salary was $30,000, your marginal tax rate was 15%. With a salary of $33,000, your marginal tax rate is now 25%.
The key to unlocking this myth is the word "marginal". In this scenario, your first $31,850 of income is still taxed the same way it was before you got your raise. With a $30,000 income, your take-home will be $25,891.25. If you make $33,000, you will take home $28,326.25. This is because only the extra $1,150 above $31,850 is taxed at 25% - not the whole $33,000
Read more: Financial myths, investopedia
Corporate taxes are not the same as individuals. I'll say that again. I'm not saying any profit of a corporation above $3.25 million is taxed at 92%, I'm saying individuals are at this rate.
<< <i>Like I said, I'd love to see the businessman who saw an opportunity to increase profit but decided not to do so because the profit would be taxed.
If you studied business, you would have encountered in economics the "law of diminishing returns" and would understand that any intelligent businessman will not invest in a business or an enterprise when there is a lower and lower payoff for the same amount of effort.
If you find yourself in that situation, you will understand what that means. >>
I understand what it means, but you're pretending that the small increase in tax would truly deter someone from making the extra money. So if your first $100K of income falls into the 30% bracket and the next $100K or next $1M falls into a 35% marginal rate, who is going to stop working because of the increase? Because you pocket slightly less of the 2nd $100K, you're going to forgo the income? That's ridiculous.
There are reasons to argue against taxes, but that a few percent above the current rates equates to "punishing success" is ludicrous.
<< <i>I specifically talked about tax brackets and taxing any personal income above $3,250,000 at 92%. >>
To take 92% of anyone's income for the common good is nothing less than socialism. Boils down to choosing socialism over capitalism. I'll pick the one where those that have motivation and drive are not subject to supporting those that lack enough of it to provide for themselves. Your choice is obvious - a government limitation on wealth. What's next, controlling the size of his house? How about we dictate where he shops, what he eats and what he wears. Maybe we can even have a special tax for those that can afford a live Christmas tree.
Why pay taxes at all when you can stay home at the expense of those that do. We have a whole generation of kids that truely believe it is the government's role to provide for them. Through no fault of their own many of them know of no other lifestyle.
Rampant currency debasement will be the most important investment trend of this decade, and it will devastate most people.
- Nick Giambruno Buy dollar insurance now, because the policy will cost more as the dollar becomes worth less.
One thing I learned early a long time ago in sales...ya don't have to necessarily know the competitor's products, but ya dam well better know your own product...and he didn't even know his own policy?
<< <i>
There are reasons to argue against taxes, but that a few percent above the current rates equates to "punishing success" is ludicrous. >>
I have a far left friend, who talks like you argue. In her arguments she talks about another 1% or 5% in taxes. The reality is that the current chief has proposed much more than that at different times. If all the chief's proposals passed, the total tax bill for some might well double. A 100% increase is not a few percent. Perhaps you are talking about one small part of one small proposal. Again, look at all that has been proposed, if it all passed, it would be a big chunk, not a small one for a lot of Americans.
To put it plainer language, some pundit pointed out that we are now faced with a "trophy" generation, grown up. This is a generation where every kid gets a trophy for participating, even if they are the worst player on the worst team. Now that those kids are grown up, there are politicians calling to give those grown ups trophies. Except, the grown up trophies aren't $5 in price, they are more like $50,000 or $500,000 or more in price. Many lefties don't understand why all those grown up kids can't get a "trophy." A nice big house, a full guaranteed pension, a high paying job, all those trophies, no matter how poorly they spent their time in school, no matter how poor their market or financial choices, no matter how much debt they chose to take on. No matter that they took out $100k or $200k in loans to get an Art History degree, or a degree in ancient French anthropology, or like one friend's kid was thinking of doing a degree in Songwriting.
I knew another person that treated their student loans like an ATM. Need money to spend for a trip or a car? Take out another student loan. And now the chief is talking about further rewarding such abusers of the system. There is some logic to it, but it is painful to watch those wheels turn.
I don't argue politics with my far lefty friend. There isn't enough common ground to have any kind of argument. Most political arguments degenerate into a shouting match with name calling after a bit. Ludicrous is an example of that. Besides lefties have the full force of the popular media behind them, so they can quote slanted article after slanted article to back their case. Unfortunately, the assumptions, the postulates about what is, and isn't, and the facts (a few percent vs. a 100% increase in some taxes) are too wide a gulf to have any kind of civil discussion.
Problem is - it never works that way, does it?
I knew it would happen.
And yes, talking about fair and taxes and economy with someone so far mistaken as to think their entire yearly profit gets taxed at a higher rate if they enter another tax bracket says loads right there. If you own your own business, you better figure out the tax code before you start lecturing others on how it should operate because you clearly don't understand marginal rates.
<< <i>And yes, talking about fair and taxes and economy with someone so far mistaken as to think their entire yearly profit gets taxed at a higher rate if they enter another tax bracket says loads right there. If you own your own business, you better figure out the tax code before you start lecturing others on how it should operate because you clearly don't understand marginal rates. >>
Understanding the tax code is no problem. Getting you to understand this seems to be the problem: One's entire yearly income is taxed at an overall higher rate when that person moves into the next tax bracket. While the income in the lower bracket remains taxed at the lower rate, the higher tax rate on the additional income results in a net higher rate for all of the income. If the first $50K is taxed at 20% and an additional $10K in income gets taxed at 25%, the net rate on all of the income becomes more than the initial 20%. In other words the additional 25% rate on part of the income raises the overall rate on all of the income. In this scenario the individual will pay 20% in taxes if he makes $50k and will pay more than 20% in taxes if he makes $60K. The end result is that if one moves into a higher rate tax bracket his entire yearly income gets taxed at a higher rate. End of lecture.
<< <i> There's tax brackets for a reason. Much as a couple people seem to think everyone makes or "thinks" they deserve $50k to $100k jobs, there's plenty of folks out there with no health care working jobs that pay closer to $20k per year. These jobs won't just go away, and not everyone can work a high paying job. Tax brackets HELP to make it so a person at a lower revenue can actually live. They don't have to pay the same tax rate as someone making over $3 million, and pretending that it's "fair" or the same thing by doing a flat tax is disingenuous at best. What you're really saying with that is everyone should pay a tax lower than they do now, including those making $3 million a year and above. I'm sorry, but govt and services can not function in this country on that tax revenue. That's just more greed talk. >>
The millionaire receives no more benefit from his tax dollars than does the $20K year citizen. It could be argued that the lower the income the higher the dependency on tax sponsored services and benefits. For those that receive the most benefit from tax dollars to expect those that receive the least benefit of tax dollars to foot more of the tax bill points exactly to where the greed is.
Rampant currency debasement will be the most important investment trend of this decade, and it will devastate most people.
- Nick Giambruno Buy dollar insurance now, because the policy will cost more as the dollar becomes worth less.