Hooray for the tax cut…

[Anonymous]

[quote=GoUSC]

[fantasy about making easy $10mil simply by “taking risk.”]

Why the hell should the government get any of it????[/quote]

Why the hell should the government get anybody’s money?

All taxes come from somebody.

What’s so sacred about your “$10mil” that makes it off limits?

[Anonymous]

I’m tired of all the right wing rhetoric about “risk taking” and how taxes are unfair because people should be rewarded for “Taking risks”. All this talk about risk taking sounds a lot to me like gambling. Is gambling something we should encourage? And as with any form of gambling, there are winners and losers. What do the right-wing no-tax people suppose should happen to the losers? Is all the money they made “risk taking” so sacred that some of it can’t be taxed in part to help provide a social safety net for those less fortunate? And one more thing the right-wingers don’t comprehend, being more fortunate doesn’t necessarily mean you worked any harder.

[Anonymous]

I’m tired of all the right wing rhetoric about “risk taking” and how taxes are unfair because people should be rewarded for “Taking risks”. All this talk about risk taking sounds a lot to me like gambling. Is gambling something we should encourage? And as with any form of gambling, there are winners and losers. What do the right-wing no-tax people suppose should happen to the losers? Is all the money they made “risk taking” so sacred that some of it can’t be taxed in part to help provide a social safety net for those less fortunate? And one more thing the right-wingers don’t comprehend, being more fortunate doesn’t necessarily mean you worked any harder.

[Anonymous]

I’m tired of all the right wing rhetoric about “risk taking” and how taxes are unfair because people should be rewarded for “Taking risks”. All this talk about risk taking sounds a lot to me like gambling. Is gambling something we should encourage? And as with any form of gambling, there are winners and losers. What do the right-wing no-tax people suppose should happen to the losers? Is all the money they made “risk taking” so sacred that some of it can’t be taxed in part to help provide a social safety net for those less fortunate? And one more thing the right-wingers don’t comprehend, being more fortunate doesn’t necessarily mean you worked any harder.

[Anonymous]

I’m tired of all the right wing rhetoric about “risk taking” and how taxes are unfair because people should be rewarded for “Taking risks”. All this talk about risk taking sounds a lot to me like gambling. Is gambling something we should encourage? And as with any form of gambling, there are winners and losers. What do the right-wing no-tax people suppose should happen to the losers? Is all the money they made “risk taking” so sacred that some of it can’t be taxed in part to help provide a social safety net for those less fortunate? And one more thing the right-wingers don’t comprehend, being more fortunate doesn’t necessarily mean you worked any harder.

[Anonymous]

I’m tired of all the right wing rhetoric about “risk taking” and how taxes are unfair because people should be rewarded for “Taking risks”. All this talk about risk taking sounds a lot to me like gambling. Is gambling something we should encourage? And as with any form of gambling, there are winners and losers. What do the right-wing no-tax people suppose should happen to the losers? Is all the money they made “risk taking” so sacred that some of it can’t be taxed in part to help provide a social safety net for those less fortunate? And one more thing the right-wingers don’t comprehend, being more fortunate doesn’t necessarily mean you worked any harder.

[surveyor]

[quote=pri_dk]And I’m not advocating that government control most of the capital. [/quote]

When you raise taxes, the government gains more control over the capital. It shifts from the private sector to the government.

[quote]I’m advocating that we raise taxes on the very wealthy a little bit to pay for things we already bought.

All of the European “historical” examples you reference were caused by debt and spending – not taxes.[/quote]

Which is the natural result when government controls most and more of the capital. Funny how that always happens.

[quote]I do recognize that more capital is better (BTW, we are not in a recession). But we have had historically low tax rates since 2003 and we are nothing but deeper in debt. Your “solution” is not working.[/quote]

So let me get this straight – the government spent itself into debt and the solution is to give it MORE money. Ok. No matter the tax rate, I don’t think giving government more money is the answer either.

[quote]That doesn’t make any sense. The government uses tax dollars to do stuff. The “innovators” are people hired/funded by the government. [/quote]

But in many cases those innovators were not part of the government. The Internet was developed by many companies that were hired by the government. However, it wasn’t the government who told the companies to develop the Internet into a commercial structure. The original Internet was supposed to be a communication device for the military in case of nuclear war. Certainly the government can claim credit for the creation of ARPAnet but it was private innovators who took it to the next level. The government did not fund Netscape or Apple or many of those companies.

[quote]There is no correlation in American history between lower tax rates and economic growth.[/quote]

But there sure are plenty of examples of what happens to economic growth when you increase tax rates. By the way, the package passed through Congress was not a tax decrease. It was to keep the status quo.

But there are many companies who have moved to Texas or to Nevada because of their lower tax rates. Texas enjoys pretty good economic growth nowadays as compared to California.

Many of the super rich have also decided to base their residency in Florida instead of California because they are able to avoid income taxes in California.

[quote]I’m still waiting for your explanation: How will we reduce the deficit by lowering taxes?[/quote]

When many households experience a loss of income, they usually respond by prioritizing their spending and making their finances more efficient. This should be the same with taxes. With less revenue, government will prioritize their spending and stop wasting what little they have.

This is already happening all across the country. Because of the real estate bust, many state and local governments are collecting less taxes because of the decreased valuations in property values. As a result, they have started prioritizing their spending.

[surveyor]

[quote=pri_dk]And I’m not advocating that government control most of the capital. [/quote]

When you raise taxes, the government gains more control over the capital. It shifts from the private sector to the government.

[quote]I’m advocating that we raise taxes on the very wealthy a little bit to pay for things we already bought.

All of the European “historical” examples you reference were caused by debt and spending – not taxes.[/quote]

Which is the natural result when government controls most and more of the capital. Funny how that always happens.

[quote]I do recognize that more capital is better (BTW, we are not in a recession). But we have had historically low tax rates since 2003 and we are nothing but deeper in debt. Your “solution” is not working.[/quote]

So let me get this straight – the government spent itself into debt and the solution is to give it MORE money. Ok. No matter the tax rate, I don’t think giving government more money is the answer either.

[quote]That doesn’t make any sense. The government uses tax dollars to do stuff. The “innovators” are people hired/funded by the government. [/quote]

But in many cases those innovators were not part of the government. The Internet was developed by many companies that were hired by the government. However, it wasn’t the government who told the companies to develop the Internet into a commercial structure. The original Internet was supposed to be a communication device for the military in case of nuclear war. Certainly the government can claim credit for the creation of ARPAnet but it was private innovators who took it to the next level. The government did not fund Netscape or Apple or many of those companies.

[quote]There is no correlation in American history between lower tax rates and economic growth.[/quote]

But there sure are plenty of examples of what happens to economic growth when you increase tax rates. By the way, the package passed through Congress was not a tax decrease. It was to keep the status quo.

But there are many companies who have moved to Texas or to Nevada because of their lower tax rates. Texas enjoys pretty good economic growth nowadays as compared to California.

Many of the super rich have also decided to base their residency in Florida instead of California because they are able to avoid income taxes in California.

[quote]I’m still waiting for your explanation: How will we reduce the deficit by lowering taxes?[/quote]

When many households experience a loss of income, they usually respond by prioritizing their spending and making their finances more efficient. This should be the same with taxes. With less revenue, government will prioritize their spending and stop wasting what little they have.

This is already happening all across the country. Because of the real estate bust, many state and local governments are collecting less taxes because of the decreased valuations in property values. As a result, they have started prioritizing their spending.

[surveyor]

[quote=pri_dk]And I’m not advocating that government control most of the capital. [/quote]

When you raise taxes, the government gains more control over the capital. It shifts from the private sector to the government.

[quote]I’m advocating that we raise taxes on the very wealthy a little bit to pay for things we already bought.

All of the European “historical” examples you reference were caused by debt and spending – not taxes.[/quote]

Which is the natural result when government controls most and more of the capital. Funny how that always happens.

[quote]I do recognize that more capital is better (BTW, we are not in a recession). But we have had historically low tax rates since 2003 and we are nothing but deeper in debt. Your “solution” is not working.[/quote]

So let me get this straight – the government spent itself into debt and the solution is to give it MORE money. Ok. No matter the tax rate, I don’t think giving government more money is the answer either.

[quote]That doesn’t make any sense. The government uses tax dollars to do stuff. The “innovators” are people hired/funded by the government. [/quote]

But in many cases those innovators were not part of the government. The Internet was developed by many companies that were hired by the government. However, it wasn’t the government who told the companies to develop the Internet into a commercial structure. The original Internet was supposed to be a communication device for the military in case of nuclear war. Certainly the government can claim credit for the creation of ARPAnet but it was private innovators who took it to the next level. The government did not fund Netscape or Apple or many of those companies.

[quote]There is no correlation in American history between lower tax rates and economic growth.[/quote]

But there sure are plenty of examples of what happens to economic growth when you increase tax rates. By the way, the package passed through Congress was not a tax decrease. It was to keep the status quo.

But there are many companies who have moved to Texas or to Nevada because of their lower tax rates. Texas enjoys pretty good economic growth nowadays as compared to California.

Many of the super rich have also decided to base their residency in Florida instead of California because they are able to avoid income taxes in California.

[quote]I’m still waiting for your explanation: How will we reduce the deficit by lowering taxes?[/quote]

When many households experience a loss of income, they usually respond by prioritizing their spending and making their finances more efficient. This should be the same with taxes. With less revenue, government will prioritize their spending and stop wasting what little they have.

This is already happening all across the country. Because of the real estate bust, many state and local governments are collecting less taxes because of the decreased valuations in property values. As a result, they have started prioritizing their spending.

[surveyor]

[quote=pri_dk]And I’m not advocating that government control most of the capital. [/quote]

When you raise taxes, the government gains more control over the capital. It shifts from the private sector to the government.

[quote]I’m advocating that we raise taxes on the very wealthy a little bit to pay for things we already bought.

All of the European “historical” examples you reference were caused by debt and spending – not taxes.[/quote]

Which is the natural result when government controls most and more of the capital. Funny how that always happens.

[quote]I do recognize that more capital is better (BTW, we are not in a recession). But we have had historically low tax rates since 2003 and we are nothing but deeper in debt. Your “solution” is not working.[/quote]

So let me get this straight – the government spent itself into debt and the solution is to give it MORE money. Ok. No matter the tax rate, I don’t think giving government more money is the answer either.

[quote]That doesn’t make any sense. The government uses tax dollars to do stuff. The “innovators” are people hired/funded by the government. [/quote]

But in many cases those innovators were not part of the government. The Internet was developed by many companies that were hired by the government. However, it wasn’t the government who told the companies to develop the Internet into a commercial structure. The original Internet was supposed to be a communication device for the military in case of nuclear war. Certainly the government can claim credit for the creation of ARPAnet but it was private innovators who took it to the next level. The government did not fund Netscape or Apple or many of those companies.

[quote]There is no correlation in American history between lower tax rates and economic growth.[/quote]

But there sure are plenty of examples of what happens to economic growth when you increase tax rates. By the way, the package passed through Congress was not a tax decrease. It was to keep the status quo.

But there are many companies who have moved to Texas or to Nevada because of their lower tax rates. Texas enjoys pretty good economic growth nowadays as compared to California.

Many of the super rich have also decided to base their residency in Florida instead of California because they are able to avoid income taxes in California.

[quote]I’m still waiting for your explanation: How will we reduce the deficit by lowering taxes?[/quote]

When many households experience a loss of income, they usually respond by prioritizing their spending and making their finances more efficient. This should be the same with taxes. With less revenue, government will prioritize their spending and stop wasting what little they have.

This is already happening all across the country. Because of the real estate bust, many state and local governments are collecting less taxes because of the decreased valuations in property values. As a result, they have started prioritizing their spending.

[surveyor]

[quote=pri_dk]And I’m not advocating that government control most of the capital. [/quote]

When you raise taxes, the government gains more control over the capital. It shifts from the private sector to the government.

[quote]I’m advocating that we raise taxes on the very wealthy a little bit to pay for things we already bought.

All of the European “historical” examples you reference were caused by debt and spending – not taxes.[/quote]

Which is the natural result when government controls most and more of the capital. Funny how that always happens.

[quote]I do recognize that more capital is better (BTW, we are not in a recession). But we have had historically low tax rates since 2003 and we are nothing but deeper in debt. Your “solution” is not working.[/quote]

So let me get this straight – the government spent itself into debt and the solution is to give it MORE money. Ok. No matter the tax rate, I don’t think giving government more money is the answer either.

[quote]That doesn’t make any sense. The government uses tax dollars to do stuff. The “innovators” are people hired/funded by the government. [/quote]

But in many cases those innovators were not part of the government. The Internet was developed by many companies that were hired by the government. However, it wasn’t the government who told the companies to develop the Internet into a commercial structure. The original Internet was supposed to be a communication device for the military in case of nuclear war. Certainly the government can claim credit for the creation of ARPAnet but it was private innovators who took it to the next level. The government did not fund Netscape or Apple or many of those companies.

[quote]There is no correlation in American history between lower tax rates and economic growth.[/quote]

But there sure are plenty of examples of what happens to economic growth when you increase tax rates. By the way, the package passed through Congress was not a tax decrease. It was to keep the status quo.

But there are many companies who have moved to Texas or to Nevada because of their lower tax rates. Texas enjoys pretty good economic growth nowadays as compared to California.

Many of the super rich have also decided to base their residency in Florida instead of California because they are able to avoid income taxes in California.

[quote]I’m still waiting for your explanation: How will we reduce the deficit by lowering taxes?[/quote]

When many households experience a loss of income, they usually respond by prioritizing their spending and making their finances more efficient. This should be the same with taxes. With less revenue, government will prioritize their spending and stop wasting what little they have.

This is already happening all across the country. Because of the real estate bust, many state and local governments are collecting less taxes because of the decreased valuations in property values. As a result, they have started prioritizing their spending.

[CA renter]

[quote=deadzone]I’m tired of all the right wing rhetoric about “risk taking” and how taxes are unfair because people should be rewarded for “Taking risks”. All this talk about risk taking sounds a lot to me like gambling. Is gambling something we should encourage? And as with any form of gambling, there are winners and losers. What do the right-wing no-tax people suppose should happen to the losers? Is all the money they made “risk taking” so sacred that some of it can’t be taxed in part to help provide a social safety net for those less fortunate? And one more thing the right-wingers don’t comprehend, being more fortunate doesn’t necessarily mean you worked any harder.[/quote]

Good post, deadzone. “Risk-taking” does not equate to “productivity” or any other beneficial thing.

As a matter of fact, some of us would say that all of this “risk-taking” is what caused our current financial problems.

[CA renter]

[quote=deadzone]I’m tired of all the right wing rhetoric about “risk taking” and how taxes are unfair because people should be rewarded for “Taking risks”. All this talk about risk taking sounds a lot to me like gambling. Is gambling something we should encourage? And as with any form of gambling, there are winners and losers. What do the right-wing no-tax people suppose should happen to the losers? Is all the money they made “risk taking” so sacred that some of it can’t be taxed in part to help provide a social safety net for those less fortunate? And one more thing the right-wingers don’t comprehend, being more fortunate doesn’t necessarily mean you worked any harder.[/quote]

Good post, deadzone. “Risk-taking” does not equate to “productivity” or any other beneficial thing.

As a matter of fact, some of us would say that all of this “risk-taking” is what caused our current financial problems.

[CA renter]

[quote=deadzone]I’m tired of all the right wing rhetoric about “risk taking” and how taxes are unfair because people should be rewarded for “Taking risks”. All this talk about risk taking sounds a lot to me like gambling. Is gambling something we should encourage? And as with any form of gambling, there are winners and losers. What do the right-wing no-tax people suppose should happen to the losers? Is all the money they made “risk taking” so sacred that some of it can’t be taxed in part to help provide a social safety net for those less fortunate? And one more thing the right-wingers don’t comprehend, being more fortunate doesn’t necessarily mean you worked any harder.[/quote]

Good post, deadzone. “Risk-taking” does not equate to “productivity” or any other beneficial thing.

As a matter of fact, some of us would say that all of this “risk-taking” is what caused our current financial problems.

[CA renter]

[quote=deadzone]I’m tired of all the right wing rhetoric about “risk taking” and how taxes are unfair because people should be rewarded for “Taking risks”. All this talk about risk taking sounds a lot to me like gambling. Is gambling something we should encourage? And as with any form of gambling, there are winners and losers. What do the right-wing no-tax people suppose should happen to the losers? Is all the money they made “risk taking” so sacred that some of it can’t be taxed in part to help provide a social safety net for those less fortunate? And one more thing the right-wingers don’t comprehend, being more fortunate doesn’t necessarily mean you worked any harder.[/quote]

Good post, deadzone. “Risk-taking” does not equate to “productivity” or any other beneficial thing.

As a matter of fact, some of us would say that all of this “risk-taking” is what caused our current financial problems.

[Author]

Posts