[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=GoUSC] But at the end of the day, because I was willing to take risk I ended up with $10mil to give my kids. Why the hell should the government get any of it???? Makes no sense whatsoever.[/quote]

I find that there are many here who feel that being rich means that somehow you had to screw someone over or do something dirty in order to make the money, that somehow it does not really belong to the “rich.” As a result, very often there is the attitude that the government should be used as a vehicle to “remedy” the injustice and to “take” the money away through taxes, regulations, or other means.

Then there is the “hick” or “tea party” attitude that the money you make is yours, for you to choose what to do with, whether to spend it awfully or to save it for your kids, it is the freedom to choose. You personally sacrificed, scrimped, and saved your money. The money that you have, whether a small sum or a grand fortune, is literally the fruit of your labors. Is it the government’s to confiscate? To take away without due compensation?

What say you?

[surveyor]

[quote=GoUSC] But at the end of the day, because I was willing to take risk I ended up with $10mil to give my kids. Why the hell should the government get any of it???? Makes no sense whatsoever.[/quote]

I find that there are many here who feel that being rich means that somehow you had to screw someone over or do something dirty in order to make the money, that somehow it does not really belong to the “rich.” As a result, very often there is the attitude that the government should be used as a vehicle to “remedy” the injustice and to “take” the money away through taxes, regulations, or other means.

Then there is the “hick” or “tea party” attitude that the money you make is yours, for you to choose what to do with, whether to spend it awfully or to save it for your kids, it is the freedom to choose. You personally sacrificed, scrimped, and saved your money. The money that you have, whether a small sum or a grand fortune, is literally the fruit of your labors. Is it the government’s to confiscate? To take away without due compensation?

What say you?

[surveyor]

[quote=GoUSC] But at the end of the day, because I was willing to take risk I ended up with $10mil to give my kids. Why the hell should the government get any of it???? Makes no sense whatsoever.[/quote]

I find that there are many here who feel that being rich means that somehow you had to screw someone over or do something dirty in order to make the money, that somehow it does not really belong to the “rich.” As a result, very often there is the attitude that the government should be used as a vehicle to “remedy” the injustice and to “take” the money away through taxes, regulations, or other means.

Then there is the “hick” or “tea party” attitude that the money you make is yours, for you to choose what to do with, whether to spend it awfully or to save it for your kids, it is the freedom to choose. You personally sacrificed, scrimped, and saved your money. The money that you have, whether a small sum or a grand fortune, is literally the fruit of your labors. Is it the government’s to confiscate? To take away without due compensation?

What say you?

[surveyor]

[quote=GoUSC] But at the end of the day, because I was willing to take risk I ended up with $10mil to give my kids. Why the hell should the government get any of it???? Makes no sense whatsoever.[/quote]

I find that there are many here who feel that being rich means that somehow you had to screw someone over or do something dirty in order to make the money, that somehow it does not really belong to the “rich.” As a result, very often there is the attitude that the government should be used as a vehicle to “remedy” the injustice and to “take” the money away through taxes, regulations, or other means.

Then there is the “hick” or “tea party” attitude that the money you make is yours, for you to choose what to do with, whether to spend it awfully or to save it for your kids, it is the freedom to choose. You personally sacrificed, scrimped, and saved your money. The money that you have, whether a small sum or a grand fortune, is literally the fruit of your labors. Is it the government’s to confiscate? To take away without due compensation?

What say you?

[surveyor]

[quote=GoUSC] But at the end of the day, because I was willing to take risk I ended up with $10mil to give my kids. Why the hell should the government get any of it???? Makes no sense whatsoever.[/quote]

I find that there are many here who feel that being rich means that somehow you had to screw someone over or do something dirty in order to make the money, that somehow it does not really belong to the “rich.” As a result, very often there is the attitude that the government should be used as a vehicle to “remedy” the injustice and to “take” the money away through taxes, regulations, or other means.

Then there is the “hick” or “tea party” attitude that the money you make is yours, for you to choose what to do with, whether to spend it awfully or to save it for your kids, it is the freedom to choose. You personally sacrificed, scrimped, and saved your money. The money that you have, whether a small sum or a grand fortune, is literally the fruit of your labors. Is it the government’s to confiscate? To take away without due compensation?

What say you?

[surveyor]

pri:

There is certainly no argument that many successful people (Gates, Buffet included) were successful because of the underlying principles of the United States. Whether their success was based on the internet, financial structures, roads (UPS), railroads (Standard Oil).

However, history has shown that the economy is more constrained, less efficient, and less reliable when the government is in charge of most of the capital. If you wish a good example, look at the economies of Europe. They are breaking down from the weight of government. Ireland, Greece, Spain, and Portugal are not doing well.

If we want to get out of this recession and become more prosperous, we have to recognize that putting more capital (read: money) into the hands of the private sector will result in more economic activity.

Now, lower taxes is a necessary part of that. It’s nice that the government funded the internet, but it put the money into the hands of innovators. It didn’t try to do it itself. Lower taxes reward effort.

Many people think that low tax proponents wish there was no tax. That is not true of me or anyone I know. I don’t mind government being funded to a certain level and I would support it. But I do know the historical results when you raise taxes. It grows the government and results in constraining economic activity.

Everyone here acknowledges that money is power. The super wealthy have it and use it to their advantage. There are many here who resent that. Yet many here would not have that problem giving the government more money (and more power). Well what happens if government has more money? It gets more power.

I would rather that the people of the U.S. be in charge of that money instead of the government. In that, we the people would have the power, not the government. We should already be well aware of what happens when the government has overwhelming power against its citizens. The history for that is not good.

[surveyor]

pri:

There is certainly no argument that many successful people (Gates, Buffet included) were successful because of the underlying principles of the United States. Whether their success was based on the internet, financial structures, roads (UPS), railroads (Standard Oil).

However, history has shown that the economy is more constrained, less efficient, and less reliable when the government is in charge of most of the capital. If you wish a good example, look at the economies of Europe. They are breaking down from the weight of government. Ireland, Greece, Spain, and Portugal are not doing well.

If we want to get out of this recession and become more prosperous, we have to recognize that putting more capital (read: money) into the hands of the private sector will result in more economic activity.

Now, lower taxes is a necessary part of that. It’s nice that the government funded the internet, but it put the money into the hands of innovators. It didn’t try to do it itself. Lower taxes reward effort.

Many people think that low tax proponents wish there was no tax. That is not true of me or anyone I know. I don’t mind government being funded to a certain level and I would support it. But I do know the historical results when you raise taxes. It grows the government and results in constraining economic activity.

Everyone here acknowledges that money is power. The super wealthy have it and use it to their advantage. There are many here who resent that. Yet many here would not have that problem giving the government more money (and more power). Well what happens if government has more money? It gets more power.

I would rather that the people of the U.S. be in charge of that money instead of the government. In that, we the people would have the power, not the government. We should already be well aware of what happens when the government has overwhelming power against its citizens. The history for that is not good.

[surveyor]

pri:

There is certainly no argument that many successful people (Gates, Buffet included) were successful because of the underlying principles of the United States. Whether their success was based on the internet, financial structures, roads (UPS), railroads (Standard Oil).

However, history has shown that the economy is more constrained, less efficient, and less reliable when the government is in charge of most of the capital. If you wish a good example, look at the economies of Europe. They are breaking down from the weight of government. Ireland, Greece, Spain, and Portugal are not doing well.

If we want to get out of this recession and become more prosperous, we have to recognize that putting more capital (read: money) into the hands of the private sector will result in more economic activity.

Now, lower taxes is a necessary part of that. It’s nice that the government funded the internet, but it put the money into the hands of innovators. It didn’t try to do it itself. Lower taxes reward effort.

Many people think that low tax proponents wish there was no tax. That is not true of me or anyone I know. I don’t mind government being funded to a certain level and I would support it. But I do know the historical results when you raise taxes. It grows the government and results in constraining economic activity.

Everyone here acknowledges that money is power. The super wealthy have it and use it to their advantage. There are many here who resent that. Yet many here would not have that problem giving the government more money (and more power). Well what happens if government has more money? It gets more power.

I would rather that the people of the U.S. be in charge of that money instead of the government. In that, we the people would have the power, not the government. We should already be well aware of what happens when the government has overwhelming power against its citizens. The history for that is not good.

[surveyor]

pri:

There is certainly no argument that many successful people (Gates, Buffet included) were successful because of the underlying principles of the United States. Whether their success was based on the internet, financial structures, roads (UPS), railroads (Standard Oil).

However, history has shown that the economy is more constrained, less efficient, and less reliable when the government is in charge of most of the capital. If you wish a good example, look at the economies of Europe. They are breaking down from the weight of government. Ireland, Greece, Spain, and Portugal are not doing well.

If we want to get out of this recession and become more prosperous, we have to recognize that putting more capital (read: money) into the hands of the private sector will result in more economic activity.

Now, lower taxes is a necessary part of that. It’s nice that the government funded the internet, but it put the money into the hands of innovators. It didn’t try to do it itself. Lower taxes reward effort.

Many people think that low tax proponents wish there was no tax. That is not true of me or anyone I know. I don’t mind government being funded to a certain level and I would support it. But I do know the historical results when you raise taxes. It grows the government and results in constraining economic activity.

Everyone here acknowledges that money is power. The super wealthy have it and use it to their advantage. There are many here who resent that. Yet many here would not have that problem giving the government more money (and more power). Well what happens if government has more money? It gets more power.

I would rather that the people of the U.S. be in charge of that money instead of the government. In that, we the people would have the power, not the government. We should already be well aware of what happens when the government has overwhelming power against its citizens. The history for that is not good.

[surveyor]

pri:

There is certainly no argument that many successful people (Gates, Buffet included) were successful because of the underlying principles of the United States. Whether their success was based on the internet, financial structures, roads (UPS), railroads (Standard Oil).

However, history has shown that the economy is more constrained, less efficient, and less reliable when the government is in charge of most of the capital. If you wish a good example, look at the economies of Europe. They are breaking down from the weight of government. Ireland, Greece, Spain, and Portugal are not doing well.

If we want to get out of this recession and become more prosperous, we have to recognize that putting more capital (read: money) into the hands of the private sector will result in more economic activity.

Now, lower taxes is a necessary part of that. It’s nice that the government funded the internet, but it put the money into the hands of innovators. It didn’t try to do it itself. Lower taxes reward effort.

Many people think that low tax proponents wish there was no tax. That is not true of me or anyone I know. I don’t mind government being funded to a certain level and I would support it. But I do know the historical results when you raise taxes. It grows the government and results in constraining economic activity.

Everyone here acknowledges that money is power. The super wealthy have it and use it to their advantage. There are many here who resent that. Yet many here would not have that problem giving the government more money (and more power). Well what happens if government has more money? It gets more power.

I would rather that the people of the U.S. be in charge of that money instead of the government. In that, we the people would have the power, not the government. We should already be well aware of what happens when the government has overwhelming power against its citizens. The history for that is not good.

[surveyor]

[quote=CA renter]
One, single person with a lot of wealth can wield much more power than a hundred thousand people (or more) with no wealth. I don’t see how that can work out to anyone’s benefit but the very rich/powerful. The wealthier and more powerful these people become, the more they can extract from the country and from the people via regulations and policies that favor themselves over “the masses” and society. How does society benefit from that?[/quote]

Gates and Buffet have created arguably thousands of jobs during their lifetime and many millionaires where there were previously none. Those jobs have not only benefited the workers, they have also created a society where luxuries that could only be previously accessible to the rich are now even affordable to the poorest of the United States.

Gates and Buffett have also decided to spend a large portion of their personal fortune to charity and other humanitarian causes.

Their benefits to society should be pretty evident and was not just limited to the rich and powerful.

Not saying everyone does this, but there is something in America that fosters this more than any other civilization. Even other societies have benefited from this, not just ours.

[Author]

Posts