General [M]ayhem

Go Back   General [M]ayhem > Real Time Sub-Forums > The Pit
Register Members List Mark Forums Read [M]erchandise Calendar

Reply
 
Thread Tools
TheMorlock
Contrary to my previous title I never fucked Inf's mother
 
TheMorlock's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdsad View Post

__________________
There is nothing to worry about. Legions of wise people with nothing but all of best interests at heart are ensuring our future of love and infinite bliss. Go watch TV :Bflaps
http://www.genmay.com/showthread.php?t=572323
Old 07-04-2011, 02:52 PM TheMorlock is offline  
Reply With Quote
#31  

Advertisement [Remove Advertisement]

Stereodude
 
Stereodude's Avatar
 
If trickle-down economics don't work, then doing something like putting a 10% tax on the sale of new boats that cost over $100k wouldn't have any negative effect on anyone but the rich and it would actually help everyone else right?
Old 07-04-2011, 02:54 PM Stereodude is offline  
Reply With Quote
#32  

Stereodude
 
Stereodude's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post
There's a very big difference between the "punish the rich" scenario you lay out, and the trickle-down theory of targeting ALL government policies towards aiding the rich in the (failed) hope that it'll spread down to everyone else. It doesn't, and hasn't. The government is supposed to advance the interest of the majority of Americans, not just increase our GDP numbers and the wealth of the top percentiles. This is NOT the same as redistribution, rather focusing on growing wealth across the entire spectrum rather than just at the top.
Can you please point out even a handful of specific gov't policies from the past 3 decades that only aid the rich?
Old 07-04-2011, 03:00 PM Stereodude is offline  
Reply With Quote
#33  

TheMorlock
Contrary to my previous title I never fucked Inf's mother
 
TheMorlock's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stereodude View Post
If trickle-down economics don't work, then doing something like putting a 10% tax on the sale of new boats that cost over $100k wouldn't have any negative effect on anyone but the rich and it would actually help everyone else right?

But that extra 10 g can buy an extra cheeseburger for a homeless man after it trickles through the fingers of 6 layers of bureaucracy. OH wait, the boat may not be bought because of the extra 10g and then the drones dont get to siphon off all but 10 bucks of that.

Wow, no upside at all.
__________________
There is nothing to worry about. Legions of wise people with nothing but all of best interests at heart are ensuring our future of love and infinite bliss. Go watch TV :Bflaps
http://www.genmay.com/showthread.php?t=572323
Old 07-04-2011, 03:02 PM TheMorlock is offline  
Reply With Quote
#34  

Stereodude
 
Stereodude's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMorlock View Post
But that extra 10 g can buy an extra cheeseburger for a homeless man after it trickles through the fingers of 6 layers of bureaucracy.
They're all believers in trickle-down economics. They difference is they believe it should trickle through the gov't instead of the private sector.
Old 07-04-2011, 03:27 PM Stereodude is offline  
Reply With Quote
#35  

joemama
Watch Toomer burn those cowboys. How bout them cowboys?
 
joemama's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stereodude View Post
If trickle-down economics don't work, then doing something like putting a 10% tax on the sale of new boats that cost over $100k wouldn't have any negative effect on anyone but the rich and it would actually help everyone else right?
Wouldn't have a negative effect on anyone else but the companies making the boats who face decreased sales..
And the boat factory workers..
And the various parts suppliers..

When you think of "rich" you probably picture multi-millionaires and billionaires who would eat the tax regardless...but there are many more "millionaires" that may only have 2-3 mil to play around with and decide that the extra tax puts such things out of their comfortable reach. You can't raise taxes without affecting more than the intended target..
__________________
Rapid-fire double bass of the GenMay dru[M]mers collective

Syndrome of a Downs- drums/songwriter
._--_|\
/ииииииии\
\_.--Bumfuck Egypt
.......v
Old 07-04-2011, 03:38 PM joemama is offline  
Reply With Quote
#36  

pojke
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by joemama View Post
Wouldn't have a negative effect on anyone else but the companies making the boats who face decreased sales..
And the boat factory workers..
And the various parts suppliers..

When you think of "rich" you probably picture multi-millionaires and billionaires who would eat the tax regardless...but there are many more "millionaires" that may only have 2-3 mil to play around with and decide that the extra tax puts such things out of their comfortable reach. You can't raise taxes without affecting more than the intended target..
Your assumption here seems to be that when the $ from the 10% tax is shifted elsewhere that it no longer exists. Not true. That $ can be allocated in a variety of ways but eventually ends up in other hands. It is then pumped into the economy by someone else, who might for example spend it on a new air conditioner, hard drive or lawn mower. The companies who make those items provide jobs just like the ones who make yachts.
Old 07-04-2011, 04:12 PM pojke is offline  
Reply With Quote
#37  

TheMorlock
Contrary to my previous title I never fucked Inf's mother
 
TheMorlock's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pojke View Post
Your assumption here seems to be that when the $ from the 10% tax is shifted elsewhere that it no longer exists. Not true. That $ can be allocated in a variety of ways but eventually ends up in other hands. It is then pumped into the economy by someone else, who might for example spend it on a new air conditioner, hard drive or lawn mower. The companies who make those items provide jobs just like the ones who make yachts.

But most of it goes to bureaucrats who simply do not create any wealth. They only consume. And some of the money does cease to exist by wasting it on boondogles that have negative ROI.

And at each point the money changes hands it gets taxed again. Economic friction
__________________
There is nothing to worry about. Legions of wise people with nothing but all of best interests at heart are ensuring our future of love and infinite bliss. Go watch TV :Bflaps
http://www.genmay.com/showthread.php?t=572323
Old 07-04-2011, 04:19 PM TheMorlock is offline  
Reply With Quote
#38  

:ninja:
My cooter sweats, and reeks like rotting sea vermon.
 
:ninja:'s Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stereodude View Post
Rich people and companies buy private jets. Someone had to make those jets which in turn employs people. Those people get paid. Someone has to fly the jet, so they hire a pilot. The pilots gets paid. Someone has to maintain the jet like a grounds crew. Those people get paid. So all these people getting paid out of the private jet industry now have money which they spend at the grocery store, drug store, movie theater, etc. Those business then employ people and it ripples through the economy.

Do you really think that in the above scenario that everyone who was employed via the private jet industry would be better off unemployed, on welfare, food stamps, living off the gov't because the gov't taxed rich people & companies so much that none of them could either afford to or were unwilling to buy a private jet (either through very high direct income taxes or punitive taxes on the purchase of private jets)?
Do you think the gov't would collect enough in their very high direct taxes or punitive taxes on the purchase of private jets to pay for all the "benefits" they're paying to all the people who are now unemployed because the private jet industry died?
How about the gov't... Do they collect more tax money by punishing the rich and companies with heavy taxes and paying "benefits" to scores of now unemployed people than they would if have a bunch of employed tax payers but aren't taxing the rich and companies to death?
yes, I forgot. Millionaires spending money on luxury items makes the world go round.

The vast population shouldn't depend on the loving embrace of the rich. The very idea that we're supposed to sit and hope that some billionaire spends his money in such a way that it will eventually benefit the vast majority is fucking ridiculous. Absolutely bonkers. You have people making $25 million a year, and instead of taking $10 million and giving a slice to all of his employees, he buys a private jet. And... this is somehow better for the economy?

Also, this idea that lowering corporate taxes will suddenly halve our unemployment rate is equally bonkers. IBM fires 30,000 US employees and hires 90,000 Indian employees. Manufacturing is GONE. R&D is GONE. These companies don't give two shits about employing Americans. They only care about their stockholders and their profits. Oh, and their private jets
__________________
Use Linux and BSD

Last edited by :ninja:; 07-04-2011 at 04:42 PM..
Old 07-04-2011, 04:37 PM :ninja: is offline  
Reply With Quote
#39  

Stereodude
 
Stereodude's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by :ninja: View Post
Absolutely bonkers. You have people making $25 million a year, and instead of taking $10 million and giving a slice to all of his employees, he buys a private jet. And... this is somehow better for the economy?
But you want the gov't to take the $10 million away from the person. How does that help all of his employees or anyone?

In other words you're conceding the argument?
Old 07-04-2011, 04:42 PM Stereodude is offline  
Reply With Quote
#40  

Stereodude
 
Stereodude's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pojke View Post
Your assumption here seems to be that when the $ from the 10% tax is shifted elsewhere that it no longer exists. Not true. That $ can be allocated in a variety of ways but eventually ends up in other hands. It is then pumped into the economy by someone else, who might for example spend it on a new air conditioner, hard drive or lawn mower. The companies who make those items provide jobs just like the ones who make yachts.
So in other words the money ripples through the economy?
Old 07-04-2011, 04:46 PM Stereodude is offline  
Reply With Quote
#41  

:ninja:
My cooter sweats, and reeks like rotting sea vermon.
 
:ninja:'s Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stereodude View Post
But you want the gov't to take the $10 million away from the person. How does that help all of his employees or anyone?
Infrastructure. Education. Health care. These are all more important that some dickhole having a gulfstream to shuttle his ass to Congress to beg for more money. Your argument would be fine and dandy if the income disparity wasn't so fucking huge. These CEOs want to reduce the amount they pay their employees. Fruit of the Loom and Hanes said they didn't want to pay someone more than $5 a FUCKING DAY. Yes, clearly our corporate overlords are beacons of advanced society.
__________________
Use Linux and BSD
Old 07-04-2011, 04:47 PM :ninja: is offline  
Reply With Quote
#42  

Stereodude
 
Stereodude's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by :ninja: View Post
Also, this idea that lowering corporate taxes will suddenly halve our unemployment rate is equally bonkers. IBM fires 30,000 US employees and hires 90,000 Indian employees. Manufacturing is GONE. R&D is GONE. These companies don't give two shits about employing Americans. They only care about their stockholders and their profits. Oh, and their private jets
You really are a . Why do you think they moved the jobs overseas? Because their customer would rather deal with a guy in India on the phone? No, that's not it. It's because it's more attractive to do business in India than it is in the US. I wonder why that might be... It certainly couldn't be all the regulations, laws, and rules the US puts on business that strangles it...

Frankly speaking we should eliminate corporate income taxes. Companies don't pay taxes anyhow, their customers do.
Old 07-04-2011, 04:50 PM Stereodude is offline  
Reply With Quote
#43  

:ninja:
My cooter sweats, and reeks like rotting sea vermon.
 
:ninja:'s Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stereodude View Post
You really are a . Why do you think they moved the jobs overseas? Because their customer would rather deal with a guy in India on the phone? No, that's not it. It's because it's more attractive to do business in India than it is in the US. I wonder why that might be... It certainly couldn't be all the regulations, laws, and rules the US puts on business that strangles it...

You are still completely missing the point.
US companies should look out for US employees. They don't care. They think that unemployment, medicare, the threat of legal retaliation for indiscriminate downsizing, etc... are not worth it. They have no problems paying some poor sap in Haiti $2.50 a day, because they don't give a shit about human life. They only give a shit about profits. They have theirs, the rest of the country can go fuck itself.
__________________
Use Linux and BSD
Old 07-04-2011, 04:53 PM :ninja: is offline  
Reply With Quote
#44  

:ninja:
My cooter sweats, and reeks like rotting sea vermon.
 
:ninja:'s Avatar
 
God forbid I have to pay my employees a fair living wage. Fuck that, I need another private jet
__________________
Use Linux and BSD
Old 07-04-2011, 04:59 PM :ninja: is offline  
Reply With Quote
#45  

Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:58 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.