TAX TAX TAX and more TAX

[sdduuuude]

[quote=afx114]I understand that taxes will always seem too high, no matter what level they are at.[/quote]

Again – it isn’t the taxes, it is the spending.

Spending around 5 or 10 percent of GDP would be just fine with me.

I agree – you need the courts and cops. Problem is, the gov has gotten out of the business of enforcing property rights and regulating fraud, and is more interested in regulating an outcome.

If they just stuck to policing violent criminals, theives of all kinds, and contractual liars, they wouldn’t need money to try and regulate/police us into a perfect society with no poverty and endless economic growth.

[Anonymous]

[quote=SK in CV]If you then use the cash to buy existing shares of stock, the argument can be made that you have taken money OUT of circulation.[/quote]

Buying a stock, or anything, with cash does not impact the money supply. The cash just moves from the buyer to the seller.

The more important issue regarding taxes /fees on trading is that the increased transaction costs will reduce liquidity, which has many adverse repercussions.

[Anonymous]

[quote=SK in CV]If you then use the cash to buy existing shares of stock, the argument can be made that you have taken money OUT of circulation.[/quote]

Buying a stock, or anything, with cash does not impact the money supply. The cash just moves from the buyer to the seller.

The more important issue regarding taxes /fees on trading is that the increased transaction costs will reduce liquidity, which has many adverse repercussions.

[Anonymous]

[quote=SK in CV]If you then use the cash to buy existing shares of stock, the argument can be made that you have taken money OUT of circulation.[/quote]

Buying a stock, or anything, with cash does not impact the money supply. The cash just moves from the buyer to the seller.

The more important issue regarding taxes /fees on trading is that the increased transaction costs will reduce liquidity, which has many adverse repercussions.

[Anonymous]

[quote=SK in CV]If you then use the cash to buy existing shares of stock, the argument can be made that you have taken money OUT of circulation.[/quote]

Buying a stock, or anything, with cash does not impact the money supply. The cash just moves from the buyer to the seller.

The more important issue regarding taxes /fees on trading is that the increased transaction costs will reduce liquidity, which has many adverse repercussions.

[Anonymous]

[quote=SK in CV]If you then use the cash to buy existing shares of stock, the argument can be made that you have taken money OUT of circulation.[/quote]

Buying a stock, or anything, with cash does not impact the money supply. The cash just moves from the buyer to the seller.

The more important issue regarding taxes /fees on trading is that the increased transaction costs will reduce liquidity, which has many adverse repercussions.

[Aecetia]

I do not believe the rich get better protection than the poor for their taxes. The rich may get better protection in Rancho Santa Fe because they pay for private security there, but the poor get as much attention from law enforcement. That’s why justice is blind.

[Aecetia]

I do not believe the rich get better protection than the poor for their taxes. The rich may get better protection in Rancho Santa Fe because they pay for private security there, but the poor get as much attention from law enforcement. That’s why justice is blind.

[Aecetia]

I do not believe the rich get better protection than the poor for their taxes. The rich may get better protection in Rancho Santa Fe because they pay for private security there, but the poor get as much attention from law enforcement. That’s why justice is blind.

[Aecetia]

I do not believe the rich get better protection than the poor for their taxes. The rich may get better protection in Rancho Santa Fe because they pay for private security there, but the poor get as much attention from law enforcement. That’s why justice is blind.

[Aecetia]

I do not believe the rich get better protection than the poor for their taxes. The rich may get better protection in Rancho Santa Fe because they pay for private security there, but the poor get as much attention from law enforcement. That’s why justice is blind.

[surveyor]

[quote=SK in CV]If that is really the main issue of the tea partiers, where were they for the 8 years before this administration, when congress and the administration ran up debt, and spent and grew the size of government faster than any before them? As the deficit grew by 3 to 4 times what it had been during the previous 8 years and 50% higher than every other administration before, besides Bush the senior’s 4 years in office.[/quote]

Perhaps most people weren’t listening.

“As to Bush’s non-defense, non-homeland security domestic spending, people did complain — lots of them and frequently. Why isn’t this more widely recognized? When a conservative criticizes Rush Limbaugh, that’s news. The left hates Limbaugh. When a conservative criticizes Bush’s spending, that’s not news. The left loves domestic spending. For liberals, Bush’s No Child Left Behind program “wasn’t fully funded.” The prescription bill for seniors contained a “doughnut hole,” which made it insufficiently generous.

Conservatives, pundits and talk show hosts routinely blasted Bush for domestic spending. In 2003, after the passage of the Medicare prescription bill, a member of The Heritage Foundation said, “The president isn’t showing leadership, and conservatives are angry.” Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas, said, “The conservative, free-market base in America is rightly in revolt over this bill.”

(article by Larry Elder, in Washington Post)

[surveyor]

[quote=SK in CV]If that is really the main issue of the tea partiers, where were they for the 8 years before this administration, when congress and the administration ran up debt, and spent and grew the size of government faster than any before them? As the deficit grew by 3 to 4 times what it had been during the previous 8 years and 50% higher than every other administration before, besides Bush the senior’s 4 years in office.[/quote]

Perhaps most people weren’t listening.

“As to Bush’s non-defense, non-homeland security domestic spending, people did complain — lots of them and frequently. Why isn’t this more widely recognized? When a conservative criticizes Rush Limbaugh, that’s news. The left hates Limbaugh. When a conservative criticizes Bush’s spending, that’s not news. The left loves domestic spending. For liberals, Bush’s No Child Left Behind program “wasn’t fully funded.” The prescription bill for seniors contained a “doughnut hole,” which made it insufficiently generous.

Conservatives, pundits and talk show hosts routinely blasted Bush for domestic spending. In 2003, after the passage of the Medicare prescription bill, a member of The Heritage Foundation said, “The president isn’t showing leadership, and conservatives are angry.” Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas, said, “The conservative, free-market base in America is rightly in revolt over this bill.”

(article by Larry Elder, in Washington Post)

[surveyor]

[quote=SK in CV]If that is really the main issue of the tea partiers, where were they for the 8 years before this administration, when congress and the administration ran up debt, and spent and grew the size of government faster than any before them? As the deficit grew by 3 to 4 times what it had been during the previous 8 years and 50% higher than every other administration before, besides Bush the senior’s 4 years in office.[/quote]

Perhaps most people weren’t listening.

“As to Bush’s non-defense, non-homeland security domestic spending, people did complain — lots of them and frequently. Why isn’t this more widely recognized? When a conservative criticizes Rush Limbaugh, that’s news. The left hates Limbaugh. When a conservative criticizes Bush’s spending, that’s not news. The left loves domestic spending. For liberals, Bush’s No Child Left Behind program “wasn’t fully funded.” The prescription bill for seniors contained a “doughnut hole,” which made it insufficiently generous.

Conservatives, pundits and talk show hosts routinely blasted Bush for domestic spending. In 2003, after the passage of the Medicare prescription bill, a member of The Heritage Foundation said, “The president isn’t showing leadership, and conservatives are angry.” Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas, said, “The conservative, free-market base in America is rightly in revolt over this bill.”

(article by Larry Elder, in Washington Post)

[surveyor]

[quote=SK in CV]If that is really the main issue of the tea partiers, where were they for the 8 years before this administration, when congress and the administration ran up debt, and spent and grew the size of government faster than any before them? As the deficit grew by 3 to 4 times what it had been during the previous 8 years and 50% higher than every other administration before, besides Bush the senior’s 4 years in office.[/quote]

Perhaps most people weren’t listening.

“As to Bush’s non-defense, non-homeland security domestic spending, people did complain — lots of them and frequently. Why isn’t this more widely recognized? When a conservative criticizes Rush Limbaugh, that’s news. The left hates Limbaugh. When a conservative criticizes Bush’s spending, that’s not news. The left loves domestic spending. For liberals, Bush’s No Child Left Behind program “wasn’t fully funded.” The prescription bill for seniors contained a “doughnut hole,” which made it insufficiently generous.

Conservatives, pundits and talk show hosts routinely blasted Bush for domestic spending. In 2003, after the passage of the Medicare prescription bill, a member of The Heritage Foundation said, “The president isn’t showing leadership, and conservatives are angry.” Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas, said, “The conservative, free-market base in America is rightly in revolt over this bill.”

(article by Larry Elder, in Washington Post)

[Author]

Posts