Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Djshakes
ParticipantOften your arguments revolve around the greed of these big bad corporations, bankers, business owners, etc. Greed is simply pursuing one’s self interest. Under this definition, most people are greedy because we all pursue our self interests as opposed to the interests of some stranger. I think it is fair to say that “greed” is a constant. Man will always and has pursued his self interests. Because it is a constant it can’t be a cause. You can’t explain why something changed (economic crisis) by pointing to something that hasn’t (greedy bankers). You need to point to something that changed, like the CRA which compelled banks to make bad loans, etc. I’m not saying this is the cause of the financial crisis, but merely a part of it. However, greed, which you progressives love to spew, is not. If it were, there would be no boom times as there is always greed. “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest.”
You mention that the government works for the business owners like it is a bad thing. As a big government person, you fail to realize that this country was founded on limited government. The citizens were believed to have inalienable rights, in which they borrowed some of these rights to the government, like defending the borders, so they could pursue happiness. It was never intended for the government to over reach, which it has now done in many areas in my opinion. So yes, the government works for business owners who are citizens of this country. I know you progressives would rather have the citizens working for the government but unfortunately and thankfully that isn’t the case.
I’m not an anti-government person. It has its purpose. People often argue from both ends of the spectrum when a common ground needs to be reached.
Participant[quote=briansd1]I believe it’s time that we recognize that in America, we intervene in the economy just as much as the socialist countries of Europe.
We just don’t call it what it is to obfuscate the issues. We bail out the banks, but our government is too timid to take them over and throw out the executives.
Our brand of socialism is for the very richest. It creates periods of exhuberance in boom and bust cycles. Only the most entrepreneurial and best connected people can take advantage of those cycles.[/quote]
Under a Socialist model the government owns the means of production. When SHTF the people rise up and blame the government…much like what is happening in Europe.
Under a Facist model the means of production remains under private ownership often directed by the government. This is a much more politically viable model. When the economy takes a turn for the worse politicians parade the business owners in front of a congressional hearing condemning them for the economies ails while all along the business owners were simply following the legislation bestowed upon them by the condemning political body.
What type of model seems more indicative in the US right now? Think Dood and Frank.
Participant[quote=briansd1]I believe it’s time that we recognize that in America, we intervene in the economy just as much as the socialist countries of Europe.
We just don’t call it what it is to obfuscate the issues. We bail out the banks, but our government is too timid to take them over and throw out the executives.
Our brand of socialism is for the very richest. It creates periods of exhuberance in boom and bust cycles. Only the most entrepreneurial and best connected people can take advantage of those cycles.[/quote]
Under a Socialist model the government owns the means of production. When SHTF the people rise up and blame the government…much like what is happening in Europe.
Under a Facist model the means of production remains under private ownership often directed by the government. This is a much more politically viable model. When the economy takes a turn for the worse politicians parade the business owners in front of a congressional hearing condemning them for the economies ails while all along the business owners were simply following the legislation bestowed upon them by the condemning political body.
What type of model seems more indicative in the US right now? Think Dood and Frank.
Participant[quote=briansd1]I believe it’s time that we recognize that in America, we intervene in the economy just as much as the socialist countries of Europe.
We just don’t call it what it is to obfuscate the issues. We bail out the banks, but our government is too timid to take them over and throw out the executives.
Our brand of socialism is for the very richest. It creates periods of exhuberance in boom and bust cycles. Only the most entrepreneurial and best connected people can take advantage of those cycles.[/quote]
Under a Socialist model the government owns the means of production. When SHTF the people rise up and blame the government…much like what is happening in Europe.
Under a Facist model the means of production remains under private ownership often directed by the government. This is a much more politically viable model. When the economy takes a turn for the worse politicians parade the business owners in front of a congressional hearing condemning them for the economies ails while all along the business owners were simply following the legislation bestowed upon them by the condemning political body.
What type of model seems more indicative in the US right now? Think Dood and Frank.
Participant[quote=briansd1]I believe it’s time that we recognize that in America, we intervene in the economy just as much as the socialist countries of Europe.
We just don’t call it what it is to obfuscate the issues. We bail out the banks, but our government is too timid to take them over and throw out the executives.
Our brand of socialism is for the very richest. It creates periods of exhuberance in boom and bust cycles. Only the most entrepreneurial and best connected people can take advantage of those cycles.[/quote]
Under a Socialist model the government owns the means of production. When SHTF the people rise up and blame the government…much like what is happening in Europe.
Under a Facist model the means of production remains under private ownership often directed by the government. This is a much more politically viable model. When the economy takes a turn for the worse politicians parade the business owners in front of a congressional hearing condemning them for the economies ails while all along the business owners were simply following the legislation bestowed upon them by the condemning political body.
What type of model seems more indicative in the US right now? Think Dood and Frank.
Participant[quote=briansd1]I believe it’s time that we recognize that in America, we intervene in the economy just as much as the socialist countries of Europe.
We just don’t call it what it is to obfuscate the issues. We bail out the banks, but our government is too timid to take them over and throw out the executives.
Our brand of socialism is for the very richest. It creates periods of exhuberance in boom and bust cycles. Only the most entrepreneurial and best connected people can take advantage of those cycles.[/quote]
Under a Socialist model the government owns the means of production. When SHTF the people rise up and blame the government…much like what is happening in Europe.
Under a Facist model the means of production remains under private ownership often directed by the government. This is a much more politically viable model. When the economy takes a turn for the worse politicians parade the business owners in front of a congressional hearing condemning them for the economies ails while all along the business owners were simply following the legislation bestowed upon them by the condemning political body.
What type of model seems more indicative in the US right now? Think Dood and Frank.
Participant[quote=CA renter]
Do realize that wealth can be defined in a number of ways, but I define it as the control and ownership of the world’s finite resources — the monetary units might change, but the end result is what I care about. In this sense, it is most definitely “zero-sum.”[/quote]You can define wealth however you want to compliment your stance. In regards to finite resources, what maybe currently overlooked today could very well be tomorrow’s resource. The only thing finite is man’s ability to discover and utilize new resources. 400 years ago no one would have ever imagined a combustible engine or what would power this engine, although the resources existed. Assuming resources are finite is assuming mankind is at the peak of his knowledge in discovering new resources or utilizing them. What if man discovers a way to efficiently utilize a resource with zero waste? Then it doesn’t matter if there is a finite source of that resource as long as the finite source is able to meet the demand.
Participant[quote=CA renter]
Do realize that wealth can be defined in a number of ways, but I define it as the control and ownership of the world’s finite resources — the monetary units might change, but the end result is what I care about. In this sense, it is most definitely “zero-sum.”[/quote]You can define wealth however you want to compliment your stance. In regards to finite resources, what maybe currently overlooked today could very well be tomorrow’s resource. The only thing finite is man’s ability to discover and utilize new resources. 400 years ago no one would have ever imagined a combustible engine or what would power this engine, although the resources existed. Assuming resources are finite is assuming mankind is at the peak of his knowledge in discovering new resources or utilizing them. What if man discovers a way to efficiently utilize a resource with zero waste? Then it doesn’t matter if there is a finite source of that resource as long as the finite source is able to meet the demand.
Participant[quote=CA renter]
Do realize that wealth can be defined in a number of ways, but I define it as the control and ownership of the world’s finite resources — the monetary units might change, but the end result is what I care about. In this sense, it is most definitely “zero-sum.”[/quote]You can define wealth however you want to compliment your stance. In regards to finite resources, what maybe currently overlooked today could very well be tomorrow’s resource. The only thing finite is man’s ability to discover and utilize new resources. 400 years ago no one would have ever imagined a combustible engine or what would power this engine, although the resources existed. Assuming resources are finite is assuming mankind is at the peak of his knowledge in discovering new resources or utilizing them. What if man discovers a way to efficiently utilize a resource with zero waste? Then it doesn’t matter if there is a finite source of that resource as long as the finite source is able to meet the demand.
Participant[quote=CA renter]
Do realize that wealth can be defined in a number of ways, but I define it as the control and ownership of the world’s finite resources — the monetary units might change, but the end result is what I care about. In this sense, it is most definitely “zero-sum.”[/quote]You can define wealth however you want to compliment your stance. In regards to finite resources, what maybe currently overlooked today could very well be tomorrow’s resource. The only thing finite is man’s ability to discover and utilize new resources. 400 years ago no one would have ever imagined a combustible engine or what would power this engine, although the resources existed. Assuming resources are finite is assuming mankind is at the peak of his knowledge in discovering new resources or utilizing them. What if man discovers a way to efficiently utilize a resource with zero waste? Then it doesn’t matter if there is a finite source of that resource as long as the finite source is able to meet the demand.
Participant[quote=CA renter]
Do realize that wealth can be defined in a number of ways, but I define it as the control and ownership of the world’s finite resources — the monetary units might change, but the end result is what I care about. In this sense, it is most definitely “zero-sum.”[/quote]You can define wealth however you want to compliment your stance. In regards to finite resources, what maybe currently overlooked today could very well be tomorrow’s resource. The only thing finite is man’s ability to discover and utilize new resources. 400 years ago no one would have ever imagined a combustible engine or what would power this engine, although the resources existed. Assuming resources are finite is assuming mankind is at the peak of his knowledge in discovering new resources or utilizing them. What if man discovers a way to efficiently utilize a resource with zero waste? Then it doesn’t matter if there is a finite source of that resource as long as the finite source is able to meet the demand.
Participant[quote=AK][quote=permabear]Our country was most balanced, most productive, and most secure when we had top tax rates at the modern equivalent of $10M+ at 90%[/quote]
… and back then we had an enormous tax shelter industry that resulted in quite a bit of misallocation of capital. The collapse of the tax shelter industry after the Tax Reform Act of 1986 is often cited as a trigger event of the savings and loan crisis.
I’d be surprised if anyone actually paid that 90% marginal tax rate.[/quote]
Exactly….NO ONE paid that rate.
The ultimate goal of the government for taxation policies should be revenue for whatever they want to overspend on….after they take their “maintenance fee”. However, that is often not that case. Taxation policies normally revolve around class warfare in order to gain votes based on entitlement. I would love to see how much $100 of revenue is actually distributed back to the people after overhead. $20? maybe. So $80 goes to a middleman that produces nothing but bureaucracy.
If the government truly wanted Revenue they would drop the tax rate across the board. It has been proven time and time again that a decreased tax rate generates more revenue…which should be the ultimate goal.
A little excerpt from an article I read
“Internal Revenue Service data show that there were 206 people who reported annual incomes of one million dollars or more in 1916. But, as the tax rate on high incomes skyrocketed under the Woodrow Wilson administration, that number plummeted to just 21 people reporting a million dollars a year in income five years later.
Not to worry. Right after Congress enacted the cuts in tax rates there were suddenly 207 people reporting taxable incomes of a million dollars or more in 1925. As Casey Stengel used to say, “You could look it up.” It is on page 21 of an Internal Revenue publication titled “Statistics of Income from Returns of Net Income for 1925.”
The government, which collected less than $50 million in taxes on capital gains in 1924, suddenly collected well over $100 million in capital gains taxes in 1925. At lower tax rates, it no longer made sense to keep so much invested in tax-exempt securities, when more money could be made by investing in the economy.
As for “the rich”– who really were rich in those days, when $100,000 was worth more than a million dollars is worth today– those in the highest income brackets paid 30 percent of all taxes in 1920 and 65 percent of all taxes by 1929, after “tax cuts for the rich.”
Participant[quote=AK][quote=permabear]Our country was most balanced, most productive, and most secure when we had top tax rates at the modern equivalent of $10M+ at 90%[/quote]
… and back then we had an enormous tax shelter industry that resulted in quite a bit of misallocation of capital. The collapse of the tax shelter industry after the Tax Reform Act of 1986 is often cited as a trigger event of the savings and loan crisis.
I’d be surprised if anyone actually paid that 90% marginal tax rate.[/quote]
Exactly….NO ONE paid that rate.
The ultimate goal of the government for taxation policies should be revenue for whatever they want to overspend on….after they take their “maintenance fee”. However, that is often not that case. Taxation policies normally revolve around class warfare in order to gain votes based on entitlement. I would love to see how much $100 of revenue is actually distributed back to the people after overhead. $20? maybe. So $80 goes to a middleman that produces nothing but bureaucracy.
If the government truly wanted Revenue they would drop the tax rate across the board. It has been proven time and time again that a decreased tax rate generates more revenue…which should be the ultimate goal.
A little excerpt from an article I read
“Internal Revenue Service data show that there were 206 people who reported annual incomes of one million dollars or more in 1916. But, as the tax rate on high incomes skyrocketed under the Woodrow Wilson administration, that number plummeted to just 21 people reporting a million dollars a year in income five years later.
Not to worry. Right after Congress enacted the cuts in tax rates there were suddenly 207 people reporting taxable incomes of a million dollars or more in 1925. As Casey Stengel used to say, “You could look it up.” It is on page 21 of an Internal Revenue publication titled “Statistics of Income from Returns of Net Income for 1925.”
The government, which collected less than $50 million in taxes on capital gains in 1924, suddenly collected well over $100 million in capital gains taxes in 1925. At lower tax rates, it no longer made sense to keep so much invested in tax-exempt securities, when more money could be made by investing in the economy.
As for “the rich”– who really were rich in those days, when $100,000 was worth more than a million dollars is worth today– those in the highest income brackets paid 30 percent of all taxes in 1920 and 65 percent of all taxes by 1929, after “tax cuts for the rich.”
Participant[quote=AK][quote=permabear]Our country was most balanced, most productive, and most secure when we had top tax rates at the modern equivalent of $10M+ at 90%[/quote]
… and back then we had an enormous tax shelter industry that resulted in quite a bit of misallocation of capital. The collapse of the tax shelter industry after the Tax Reform Act of 1986 is often cited as a trigger event of the savings and loan crisis.
I’d be surprised if anyone actually paid that 90% marginal tax rate.[/quote]
Exactly….NO ONE paid that rate.
The ultimate goal of the government for taxation policies should be revenue for whatever they want to overspend on….after they take their “maintenance fee”. However, that is often not that case. Taxation policies normally revolve around class warfare in order to gain votes based on entitlement. I would love to see how much $100 of revenue is actually distributed back to the people after overhead. $20? maybe. So $80 goes to a middleman that produces nothing but bureaucracy.
If the government truly wanted Revenue they would drop the tax rate across the board. It has been proven time and time again that a decreased tax rate generates more revenue…which should be the ultimate goal.
A little excerpt from an article I read
“Internal Revenue Service data show that there were 206 people who reported annual incomes of one million dollars or more in 1916. But, as the tax rate on high incomes skyrocketed under the Woodrow Wilson administration, that number plummeted to just 21 people reporting a million dollars a year in income five years later.
Not to worry. Right after Congress enacted the cuts in tax rates there were suddenly 207 people reporting taxable incomes of a million dollars or more in 1925. As Casey Stengel used to say, “You could look it up.” It is on page 21 of an Internal Revenue publication titled “Statistics of Income from Returns of Net Income for 1925.”
The government, which collected less than $50 million in taxes on capital gains in 1924, suddenly collected well over $100 million in capital gains taxes in 1925. At lower tax rates, it no longer made sense to keep so much invested in tax-exempt securities, when more money could be made by investing in the economy.
As for “the rich”– who really were rich in those days, when $100,000 was worth more than a million dollars is worth today– those in the highest income brackets paid 30 percent of all taxes in 1920 and 65 percent of all taxes by 1929, after “tax cuts for the rich.”
-
AuthorPosts
