On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 15:39:50 -0500
Jeffrey Turner localnet.com> wrote:
> cross-rhodes wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 22:48:49 -0500
>> Jeffrey Turner localnet.com> wrote:
>>> cross-rhodes wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 18:20:29 -0500
>>>> Jeffrey Turner localnet.com> wrote:
>>>>> cross-rhodes wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 14:19:27 -0500
>>>>>> Jeffrey Turner localnet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Scratch wrote:
>>>>>>>> Don't be looking for new job growth and business coming to Oregon
>>>>>>>> anytime soon dumb ass. Or, go work for a poor company. Yea, there ya go.
>>>>>>>> Even the Real Estate office I work for whos work forse is down to 45
>>>>>>>> people from a hundred will be effected by this tax hike. It's not just
>>>>>>>> the nikie's and wal-marts.
>>>>>>> I'm sure the economy will be affected, and you should be glad. Taxes
>>>>>>> on the wealthy are good for the economy.
>>>>>> You're a fucking socialist IDIOT!
>>>>>> Taxes on the wealthy REDUCE capital reinvestment and kill jobs.
>>>>> Shouldn't your mantra start with "Om" or something?
>>>> Shoudln't yours be prefaced with "Komrade"?
>>>>> All you're lacking
>>>>> is evidence.
>>>> Oh hardly.
>>>> The larger truth is that much of the income of the rich and well-to-do comes from what they do. If they stop doing it, then the income and wealth vanish. No one gets it. It can't be redistributed because it doesn't exist. Everyone's poorer.
>>>> This isn't just theory. Last week, New York Gov. David Paterson pleaded with Congress to provide emergency aid to states. Heavily dependent on Wall Street for taxes, he testified, New York faces a $12.5 billion budget deficit next year and expects joblessness to rise by 160,000. Wall Street bonuses will drop by 43 percent and capital gains income by 35 percent, he estimated. People in New York would be better off if the securities industry were still booming, even if there were more economic inequality.
>>>> Americans legitimately resent Wall Street types who profited from dubious investment strategies that aggravated today's crisis. And government properly redistributes income to reduce hardship and poverty. But that's different from attempting to deduce and engineer some optimal distribution of income. Government can't do that and shouldn't try. Scapegoating and punishing all of the rich won't do us any good if the resulting taxes dull investment and risk-taking, discouraging economic growth that benefits everyone.
>>> The yammering of the Governor of New York is not evidence.
>> Your tepid non sequitur renders you a complete buffoon!
>>>>> Capital investment is driven by demand, and gives you a
>>>>> write-off or write-down, which is more valuable at a higher tax rate.
>>> Reality is always irrelevant to you idiots.
>> YOu have no grasp of reality, felcher, drop fuckingdead!
>>> You prefer yammering by
>>> your high priests.
>> I have no "high priests" you rhetoric-laden piece of shit - drop dead!
>>>>> The government, and the poor and working classes, spend their income.
>>>> Are you mad?
>>>> The rich spend famously!
>>> But only a small fraction of their income.
>>> If you think spending all
>>> your money is the way to stay rich... well, that explains a lot.
>> If you rely soley on persoanl misrepresentations much of your lack of credibility is explained.
>>>>> That's demand, which stimulates investment. The rich save much more of
>>>>> their income, which doesn't do much for the economy at all.
>>>> Utter BULLSHIT!
>>> Gee, if you use caps you must be right.
>> With or without - yes.
Nope just fact
> What year did you graduate clown school?
What year did you sell your soul?
>>>> Any saving they do is easily eclipsed by what they spend and invest and the coincident systemic economic multiplier effect.
>>> Wow, that almost sounds intelligent. Where's your data to back it up?
>> Did you perhaps IGNORE it?
>> As one of the top 10%% of earners in this country I want to let you know how taxing those that that you consider rich, will negatively impact the middle class more than it will hurt the rich.
>> Because it seems to have become popular to vilify the rich I want you to know what some of the rich do with their money and how it affects the middle class.
>> Last year, I paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in income taxes and over $600,000 in property taxes. Just the property taxes funded schools, roads, bridges, hospitals, police, fire departments, military, and other projects that benefit all of us equally.
>> And I do the same thing with my money that the middle class does with theirs, just more. I spend some, waste some, try to save some, invest some, and I use the rest to expand my business. Just like you, I pay bills, make house payments, buy groceries, movie tickets, go to dinner, and etc. Surpluses after taxes allow me to bring on new products, finance new ideas, make new investments, and hire new people. Expansion always requires new people creating more jobs. This surplus after taxes allows me to pay out bonuses, provide health insurance for staff, give paid vacations, and allows me as an executive to make future decisions that support the company in expanding.
>> And yes, hopefully this will create more financial security, which results in more purchases, new investments and more spending, which creates more jobs and more opportunities for others.
>> In 2007, I personally paid interest to banks on over 50,000,000 dollars in loans that amounted to over 3.5 million dollars in interest charges and fees to banks. This income then allows the banks to have more money to others so that when you want a personal loan, student loan or car loan you are able to get it. I paid property taxes in two different states and three different counties in excess of $600,000. These taxes accumulated by states and cities benefit every income class equally. We drive the same roads, have the same access to the same hospitals, and my kids will have the same teacher and sit at the same desk your kid does.
>> The house I chose to purchase requires me to pay over $90,000 a year in property taxes. This money goes to further support the people in the community with services we again equally share. I am not asking you to feel sorry for me, just know that you benefit from the successes of others. The financial decisions we all make create affects on all of us. My house requires me to hire others to take care of that investment which results in landscapers, pool maintenance, electricians, painters, woodworkers, maids, phone systems, computers, and plumbers, etc. Over the last twenty years I have I paid millions of dollars in salaries, bonuses and employee tax contributions because of my commitment to growth.
>> So when you say increase taxes on those that are already pay a majority of the taxes collected in this country understand that you will be affected also If a rich guy pays another $10,000 in taxes a year it isn't a big deal to him but will be a big deal to you if he elects to cut back one employee in order to make it up and you are the one.
>> My landscaper, Uriel, who I gave his first yard to maintain eight years ago now does most of the yards in my neighborhood. Bob, who cleans my pool depends on his job to take care of his family. My maid, Mercedes, who has worked for me for two years needs the full time job I offer her to send her daughter to school. Valdamir, my Russian driver who takes me to the LA airport for business trips depends on business people for his business to work. My personal assistant, Jen, who I wouldn't get rid of it we had a depression, just had a beautiful boy, Max, and wants me to do well because it makes her position even more secure. Eddie, the electrician, who is from the Philippines and charges me too much to fix electrical problems loves old big houses that have recurring electrical problems. My tech guy, Robert, who I just hired to manage my internet activities was out of work when I brought him on.
>> This is not a trickle down argument but basic economics, as it is impossible to penalize any one group without affecting every person in the group.
>> Who Pays Income Taxes?
>> In the year 2006 the top 10%% earners paid 70.79%% of all the income taxes in this country while the bottom 50%% of all earners paid only 2.99%%
>> Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income
Source: Internal Revenue Service
>> What these facts don't show you is how the wealthiest generated jobs, funded charities, and how their success funded roads, hospitals and more.
>> Trust me, the rich do not really care how you want to play the game as they will make up the difference regardless of the rules. They will either increase their levels of production to create more wealth, tighten up their spending or a little of both.
>> Vilify the rich if you choose to but a tax increase on the them will ultimately hurt the middle class more than it will hurt them!
>> Grant Cardone, Author and CEO
> He's just like you, except he saves more and he whines more.
Since YOU don't know ME, that's just another wild ass lie.
> maybe not more than any other wingnut. It's a hand-waving,
> lip-flapping argument, but not at all convincing. And lacking in data
One more flabby denial, sans the slightest factual points.
What a total piece of shit youa re.
>>>> What are you anyway, some spineless communist puke?
>>> Name calling is all you've really got.
>> Ignoring facts is your bellweather.
> You haven't presented a fact yet.
Why yes I have, liar.
>>>> Kurt Hauser is a San Francisco investment economist who, 15 years ago, published fresh and eye-opening data about the federal tax system. His findings imply that there are draconian constraints on the ability of tax-rate increases to generate fresh revenues. I think his discovery deserves to be called Hauser's Law, because it is as central to the economics of taxation as Boyle's Law is to the physics of gases. Yet economists and policy makers are barely aware of it.
>>>> Like science, economics advances as verifiable patterns are recognized and codified. But economics is in a far earlier stage of evolution than physics. Unfortunately, it is often poisoned by political wishful thinking, just as medieval science was poisoned by religious doctrine. Taxation is an important example.
>>>> The interactions among the myriad participants in a tax system are as impossible to unravel as are those of the molecules in a gas, and the effects of tax policies are speculative and highly contentious. Will increasing tax rates on the rich increase revenues, as Barack Obama hopes, or hold back the economy, as John McCain fears? Or both?
>>>> Mr. Hauser uncovered the means to answer these questions definitively. On this page in 1993, he stated that "No matter what the tax rates have been, in postwar America tax revenues have remained at about 19.5%% of GDP." What a pity that his discovery has not been more widely disseminated.
>>> Gee, if GDP is always five times tax collections then we _really_ should
>>> raise taxes. But that graph is pathetic. It's really tough to tell how
>>> close "about 19.5%%" tax receipts are.
>> That's really utter bulshit, and you know it, commie.
> What an argument. Not.
Enough to get you screaming denials...
>>>> .The chart nearby, updating the evidence to 2007, confirms Hauser's Law. The federal tax "yield" (revenues divided by GDP) has remained close to 19.5%%, even as the top tax bracket was brought down from 91%% to the present 35%%. This is what scientists call an "independence theorem," and it cuts the Gordian Knot of tax policy debate.
>>>> The data show that the tax yield has been independent of marginal tax rates over this period, but tax revenue is directly proportional to GDP. So if we want to increase tax revenue, we need to increase GDP.
>>>> What happens if we instead raise tax rates? Economists of all persuasions accept that a tax rate hike will reduce GDP, in which case Hauser's Law says it will also lower tax revenue. That's a highly inconvenient truth for redistributive tax policy, and it flies in the face of deeply felt beliefs about social justice. It would surely be unpopular today with those presidential candidates who plan to raise tax rates on the rich – if they knew about it.
>>> That's nonsense. All economists believe no such thing.
>> You're a fucking commie puke and almost ALL Americans instantly LOATHE you.
> Sticks and stones. Now show me some data.
You just had it, read the post again, shit-for-brains.
>>>> Although Hauser's Law sounds like a restatement of the Laffer Curve (and Mr. Hauser did cite Arthur Laffer in his original article), it has independent validity. Because Mr. Laffer's curve is a theoretical insight, theoreticians find it easy to quibble with. Test cases, where the economy responds to a tax change, always lend themselves to many alternative explanations. Conventional economists, despite immense publicity, have yet to swallow the Laffer Curve. When it is mentioned at all by critics, it is often as an object of scorn.
>>> Citing Arthur Laughable isn't a good sign of economic knowledge.
>> Playing "shoot the messenger", even after the fact, won't work, felcher.
> I see trying to have an intelligent discussion with you is impossible.
You evince not the slightest intelligence, fel;cher - drop dead.
>>>> Because Mr. Hauser's horizontal straight line is a simple fact, it is ultimately far more compelling. It also presents a major opportunity. It seems likely that the tax system could maintain a 19.5%% yield with a top bracket even lower than 35%%.
>>>> What makes Hauser's Law work? For supply-siders there is no mystery. As Mr. Hauser said: "Raising taxes encourages taxpayers to shift, hide and underreport income. . . . Higher taxes reduce the incentives to work, produce, invest and save, thereby dampening overall economic activity and job creation."
>>>> Putting it a different way, capital migrates away from regimes in which it is treated harshly, and toward regimes in which it is free to be invested profitably and safely. In this regard, the capital controlled by our richest citizens is especially tax-intolerant.
>>>> The economics of taxation will be moribund until economists accept and explain Hauser's Law. For progress to be made, they will have to face up to it, reconcile it with other facts, and incorporate it within the body of accepted knowledge. And if this requires overturning existing doctrine, then so be it.
>>> I'm sorry, but not surprised, to see you couldn't find any data to back
>>> up your assertions.
>> You are a liar, a marxist and, not to be redundant, a PIECE OF SHIT.
> As if I care about your worthless opinion.
Oh but you Do, hence you keep coming back to the discussion, liar.