So I come home from playing 18 to find 30 E-mails (I get notified whenever someone replies). Things have gone into overdrive and...Bless you and your opinionated hearts.
I have dismissed the first post! No Big Blue football, none of the time! :), The sheriff
Terry, on an economic point, say what you wish, but you are missing or refuse to admit my point. The money is the same (well not, see below), either the "rich" will spend it on their planes, boats or cars or the government will take it and give it to the "middle class". It is going to get their either way via boat and plane makers or as a handout. Except, the economic activity of the former will benefit more. And I defy you to show me how government can do better. Post by Mark and I forthcoming.
So I still maintain...The poor truly depend on the successful, who are net givers not takers. Did I just read that! How many planes, houses, are needed for the givers to start giving again, yes master, thank you master. OK, so T, I start my practice and give all the profits to charity and live a pauper. Better I say, I grow my practice (now employing 33) and use my profits (investments, home, car whatever). My friend, if you cannot accept that economic argument then...you must be a damn liberal Democrat.
Lastly, you chooses the very rich to make your point. And even though I do not agree that you get to decide how much is too much, your points very much miss Joe the famous plumber.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
nobody is against millionaires on my side of the argument certainly not me who has made a living because of people who have as we say Made IT. If was not for wealthy people I don't know what I would have done for a living. Wealthy people have put my kids thru college, given nancy and I a pretty good living. So that should clear up the thought I am against " the rich". during the Clinton years more millionaires were created than any other time, and I believe the tax rate was higher. I am sure you do not like hearing the name Clinton but it is true.
The nexus of our argument is government vs private. That is the whole deal, nothing more. We maintain that government intervention is unsuccessful, wasteful and intrusive. You are arguing that government can give a helping hand to a deserving. Right?
I was not being condescending earlier stating that the poor get their money from the rich, they just do. What alternative economic system do you think is in existence?
OK, so Terry. Your turn. How exactly does this work? Taking from one group to give to another giving them assistance. Who decides? No BS, please answer.
So businessmen get the message. The government says I want 50 cents on the dollars for everything over a certain amount and wealthy businessmen (and women) say, "Okay, F-you, I'm going to spend some more time with my kids instead of bustin' my chops making an extra 200K only to give you half."
Now the government is out 50-100K in tax revenue. They now need 50 more people working at Mcdonalds to make up the revenue. Only the wealthy businessmen aren't hiring any extra workers, because they're being taxed too much.
And so it goes. Good luck with that.
Gary is at the plate, full count, and OH MY GOD, he hits one out..of..the..park.
Gosh, I can hardly wait to see how the other side convolutes themselves to rationalize this one, without, as always, answering either the basic or stated questions.
Gary + Jim both miss (or do not acknowledge) the obvious point. Clinton raised taxes to a level that worked big time! The Treasury was bringing in over 20% of GDP. Bush + his tax cuts brought back the structural deficit and have revs at 17% +/- of GDP. The GOP blew it (surprise, surprise).
Gary - that ruins your disincentive argument. There is a point, of course, where higher rates do discourage compliance and economic activity. It's just not where Clinton had it. Nowhere close.
Jim knows this and is loathe to admit it. I guess both of you would rather let someone else pay your bills tomorrow while you live comfy today.
Our point is about specifically targeting the wealthy as if they were terrorists. These are the people who are driving the economy. They are the business owners who employ the workers who pay the taxes, who buy the cars . . .etc.
Targeting that sector of the workforce is bad business. Why do you think all the wealthy golfers live in Florida? No state tax.
The wealthy will find a way to avoid paying extreme taxes and working less is one way to do it. Then what? Everyone on the chain below them suffers. That's not even debatable.
Let's be real the wealthy have put so many loopholes and tax dodges etc.As I have stated earlier Warren Buffett's secretary pays more taxes than he. The rich stop making money and sit on the beach when they have made enough, is that really your argument, are you kidding. McCain has 13 cars, 9 houses. People are making generational wealth so their grandkids would never have to work. it's silly on another point the corporate tax is high in this country is because none of them pay it, with floors of accountants working daily to figure how not to pay.How about a consumption tax? I assume the wealthy buy more? exempt food, and medicine?
Post a Comment