'Red Scares' -- OR CHOICE
in [Drive]
|
Prev: Red Scares -OR- Ironically this Social Justice is Poetic Justice.
Next: Germany considers tax on the obese.
From: Dave Head on 28 Jul 2010 17:37 On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 16:10:36 -0500, "bugo" <watuzi(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > >"Dave Head" <rally2xs(a)att.net> wrote in message >news:hetv465n54e7ilv4f7mgh3f2ouvncp5j86(a)4ax.com... >> On 27 Jul 2010 16:55:27 GMT, Michael Coburn <mikcob(a)verizon.net> >> wrote: >> >>>We are not here to coddle the rich. >> >> Yes we are!!!! They are Americans, and should be the object of >> government benevolence in allowing them to do as well as they are >> able. > >No, the poor should receive government benevolence because they need it the >most. The rich don't need welfare, and neither do corporations. Never said anything about welfare for the rich. I just mean that they should not be harmed with high taxes. The freakin' gov't keeps talking about another stimulus, while not realizing that if they left the greater amount of money they tax away from the rich with the rich, the rich would use it to build another factory, to... make more money. Of course the factory would employ perhaps 1000's of people, and reduce the number of people living in poverty.
From: Michael Coburn on 28 Jul 2010 18:41 On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 17:37:10 -0400, Dave Head wrote: > On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 16:10:36 -0500, "bugo" <watuzi(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > >> >>"Dave Head" <rally2xs(a)att.net> wrote in message >>news:hetv465n54e7ilv4f7mgh3f2ouvncp5j86(a)4ax.com... >>> On 27 Jul 2010 16:55:27 GMT, Michael Coburn <mikcob(a)verizon.net> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>We are not here to coddle the rich. >>> >>> Yes we are!!!! They are Americans, and should be the object of >>> government benevolence in allowing them to do as well as they are >>> able. >> >>No, the poor should receive government benevolence because they need it >>the most. The rich don't need welfare, and neither do corporations. > > Never said anything about welfare for the rich. I just mean that they > should not be harmed with high taxes. The freakin' gov't keeps talking > about another stimulus, while not realizing that if they left the > greater amount of money they tax away from the rich with the rich, the > rich would use it to build another factory, to... make more money. > > Of course the factory would employ perhaps 1000's of people, and reduce > the number of people living in poverty. Your proposition is called "supply side economics" or "trickle down economics". We have been doing it ever since the Reagan revolution. And this coddling of the rich in the hope that they will "invest" in America has failed on all counts. The "investments" were "investments" in places where government regulation was very lax, and where their were people willing to work for almost nothing. There _WAS_ a minor rise in real economic performance AFTER the Democratic tax increases on the rich in 1993. But for the rest of the last 30 years ALL gdp gains have been purchased by running up the debt. The increase in debt was BECAUSE of supply side economics and the insane idea that these people would choose to invest in the USA as opposed to elsewhere. But at the present time there is very slack demand and plenty of production. Even if supply side economics was a viable path, it would not serve the current situation. -- "Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" -- http://GreaterVoice.org/60
From: bugo on 28 Jul 2010 19:24 "Michael Coburn" <mikcob(a)verizon.net> wrote in message news:i2qbmq02l72(a)news4.newsguy.com... > Your proposition is called "supply side economics" or "trickle down > economics". We have been doing it ever since the Reagan revolution. And > this coddling of the rich in the hope that they will "invest" in America > has failed on all counts. The "investments" were "investments" in places > where government regulation was very lax, and where their were people > willing to work for almost nothing. There _WAS_ a minor rise in real > economic performance AFTER the Democratic tax increases on the rich in > 1993. But for the rest of the last 30 years ALL gdp gains have been > purchased by running up the debt. The increase in debt was BECAUSE of > supply side economics and the insane idea that these people would choose > to invest in the USA as opposed to elsewhere. But at the present time > there is very slack demand and plenty of production. Even if supply side > economics was a viable path, it would not serve the current situation. Excellent post.
From: Dave Head on 28 Jul 2010 20:37 On 28 Jul 2010 17:35:33 GMT, Michael Coburn <mikcob(a)verizon.net> wrote: >A flat rate consumption tax is a regressive tax. The Fair Tax is not a flat rate consumption tax. > And we should not have >_ANY_ fear of other nations taxing our goods. Kinda like not having fear of a bear in your tent... >We are a HUGE net >importer. We need to change that, big time. >Thus, so long as we do not get ridiculous with the tax level Too late... >and so ling as the proceeds are used progressively (bottom side stimulus) >then the result will be much more domestic production and jobs. A zero tax manufacturing environment results in bottom side stimulus. >>> or a somewhat complicated asset tax system. The asset tax >>>is a direct tax and is forbidden by the Constitution. >> >> Good idea! The FFs were really smart. > >Yet a tax on income is an excise tax on income. Its a tax on prosperity. If you want less of something, tax it, y'know? Well, its no coincindence that we have much less prosperity. >>>That leaves only >>>income taxes, excise taxes, and tariffs. >> >> Income taxes were prohibited by the FFs, too, who were really smart >> about this sort of stuff. The 16th Amendment was probably the 2nd >> biggest mistake this country has ever made, right behind slavery. > >That prohibition is a myth. Income tax was, until the late 1800's, >considered to be an excise tax. And in the 1890's, the supreme court declared it unconstitutional. >>>An excise tax on consumption is the WORST means by which to collect >>>taxes. >> >> Just wrong. > >Nice proclamation with no substance. So's the assertion.
From: Dave Head on 28 Jul 2010 20:40
On 28 Jul 2010 22:41:30 GMT, Michael Coburn <mikcob(a)verizon.net> wrote: >On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 17:37:10 -0400, Dave Head wrote: > >> On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 16:10:36 -0500, "bugo" <watuzi(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >>> >>>"Dave Head" <rally2xs(a)att.net> wrote in message >>>news:hetv465n54e7ilv4f7mgh3f2ouvncp5j86(a)4ax.com... >>>> On 27 Jul 2010 16:55:27 GMT, Michael Coburn <mikcob(a)verizon.net> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>We are not here to coddle the rich. >>>> >>>> Yes we are!!!! They are Americans, and should be the object of >>>> government benevolence in allowing them to do as well as they are >>>> able. >>> >>>No, the poor should receive government benevolence because they need it >>>the most. The rich don't need welfare, and neither do corporations. >> >> Never said anything about welfare for the rich. I just mean that they >> should not be harmed with high taxes. The freakin' gov't keeps talking >> about another stimulus, while not realizing that if they left the >> greater amount of money they tax away from the rich with the rich, the >> rich would use it to build another factory, to... make more money. >> >> Of course the factory would employ perhaps 1000's of people, and reduce >> the number of people living in poverty. > >Your proposition is called "supply side economics" or "trickle down >economics". We have been doing it ever since the Reagan revolution. No one with an income tax has really tried supply side economics. >And >this coddling of the rich in the hope that they will "invest" in America >has failed on all counts. Yeah, the income tax has made it unprofitable to build factories or other businesses here. Sooo... they get built overseas, by both American and foreign corporations. >The "investments" were "investments" in places >where government regulation was very lax, and where their were people >willing to work for almost nothing. There _WAS_ a minor rise in real >economic performance AFTER the Democratic tax increases on the rich in >1993. But for the rest of the last 30 years ALL gdp gains have been >purchased by running up the debt. The increase in debt was BECAUSE of >supply side economics and the insane idea that these people would choose >to invest in the USA as opposed to elsewhere. But at the present time >there is very slack demand and plenty of production. Even if supply side >economics was a viable path, it would not serve the current situation. |