Class War is Foolish for Dems

Lowaicue said:
Did you genuinely not understand what I said or are you just looking for a fight. If the latter you can keep on looking.
Let me say this slowly because I suspect that you can only read slowly.
The wealthy who start businesses do so ... now the hard bit ... because they are motivated to do so. If one is NOT motivated one would not think of starting a business. Indeed they are so motivated that at some point in their development many will resort to corruption and even criminal activity. That often occurs when they change from loving money to loving the power that it brings. It is easier to relinquish money than it is to relinquish power.
I notice from a quick skim of the ret of your post that you are wittering on about personal jets. Witter on, my friend, witter on.
Click to expand...

????....and is it your opinion that nothing a government can do with respect to taxes, regulation, or outright hostility will effect that motivation?......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
????....and is it your opinion that nothing a government can do with respect to taxes, regulation, or outright hostility will effect that motivation?......
Click to expand...

A man with the determination to succeed in his own business will succeed or fail without the help or hindrance of a government. Ask any successful businessman.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
silly argument......what's at issue is, if your running a business and the profits you make aren't worth the effort you put in, you sell your assets, send your employees home and get a job......
Click to expand...

Oh, I see, we are only allowed to present polarized arguments and either the obvious or the absurd...
 
Lowaicue said:
A man with the determination to succeed in his own business will succeed or fail without the help or hindrance of a government. Ask any successful businessman.
Click to expand...

Actually, policy does matter. It's just that all the neocon tropes about tax cuts and regulation become lies in the context of a globalized economy which allows slavery.
 
apple0154 said:
Nonsense! As Lowaicue made clear the wealthy do not require motivation and what's this craziness about "business income"? If the owner pays salary out of that income or buys equipment or gets his roof fixed it's all deducted. He's only taxed on what he puts in his pocket.
Click to expand...

Lowaicue said:
Did you genuinely not understand what I said or are you just looking for a fight. If the latter you can keep on looking.
Let me say this slowly because I suspect that you can only read slowly.
The wealthy who start businesses do so ... now the hard bit ... because they are motivated to do so. If one is NOT motivated one would not think of starting a business.
Click to expand...

You two are a piece of work, I tell ya! So... business people don't need motivating, they are already motivated, else they wouldn't have started a business... but why oh why are they not hiring? Why do we continue to see no jobs being created? Looks like, if they are just naturally blessed with motivation, they would be hiring right and left, with the optimism of making more money, being the motivated greedy capitalists they are... but that's just not happening, and hasn't been for a long while. Now, I actually asked this question rhetorically, I don't need the "brain trust" of Apple and LowIQ to explain it to me, I already know the answer.

When you speak of "raising taxes on the rich" ....you are talking about the small business owner. If you raise taxes on small business, that does factor in to their decision making regarding their business. When you mandate employers subsidize health care for their employees, and there is not a definable cost associated with this, you can't expect the business to go on a hiring spree, it's just not going to happen in the real world. It happens in liberal fantasy world, it happens when you're on a college campus in a philosophy class, or sitting around with your radical 60s buds smoking a blunt... but in the real world, where it counts... it just don't happen like that.
 
Dixie said:
When you speak of "raising taxes on the rich" ....you are talking about the small business owner.
Click to expand...

This is why we need a real "rich person" mark. Like 2 or three million dollars. A demarcation like that would be wildly politically successful.

Why isnt that on the table?
 
Bfgrn said:
If you make $250,001, and they raise taxes 5% on people who make over $250K, then you will have to pay 5 cents more. Five cents. F.I.V.E. C.E.N.T.S. That is what people are so upset about. 5 cents.

If it is 5% a person making $260K might pay an additional $500. That's right, the proposed tax increase is approx. $42 a month on people making $260K, about $21,600 a month. Forty-four dollars out of twenty-one thousand. THIS is what all the right-wingers are screaming about. THIS is what all the Ayn Rand cultists are threatening to stop working over. THAT is how tax brackets work.
Click to expand...

Your math seems a little screwy, not sure if you calculated before you hit the bong or after, but I think you are a little off. 5% of 260k = 13k... Now, let's say this is a carpet cleaning business making $1 million a year... that's an extra $50k in tax.... which is coincidentally what the business owner is paying a typical employee in the carpet cleaning business. So, what do you think the smart businessman will do... sell his yacht and Mercedes? Cut up the wife's credit cards? Or maybe layoff Julio?
 
Dixie said:
Your math seems a little screwy, not sure if you calculated before you hit the bong or after, but I think you are a little off. 5% of 260k = 13k... Now, let's say this is a carpet cleaning business making $1 million a year... that's an extra $50k in tax.... which is coincidentally what the business owner is paying a typical employee in the carpet cleaning business. So, what do you think the smart businessman will do... sell his yacht and Mercedes? Cut up the wife's credit cards? Or maybe layoff Julio?
Click to expand...

You are confused. Did you READ how the progressive taxation works? Didn't think so, because if you DID, you'd realize that the 5% increase only applies to any income OVER $250,000.

SO:
$260,000
-$250,000
=$10,000 x 5% = $500
 
AssHatZombie said:
This is why we need a real "rich person" mark. Like 2 or three million dollars. A demarcation like that would be wildly politically successful.

Why isnt that on the table?
Click to expand...

Because of several things... arbitrary amounts mean nothing... when I was a kid, everyone dreamed of being a millionaire... well, a million dollars just isn't that much money these days. When my Dad was a boy, a Coke cost .05 ...they are $1 now. The year after I was born, my parents bought a 3br home in a nice suburb, they paid $7,500... today, that wouldn't be a sufficient down payment on a comparable home. Values change over time, and that goes both ways... I suspect, in the midst of the Great Depression, if you had $100k, you were probably considered "rich" by the standards of the day.

The next thing is something I pointed out in the OP, the Great Misnomer! ...You see, you have fallen into this trap of thinking that people who happen to earn a high income in a given year, are "rich" or "wealthy" ....because of their tax return. We can't tax wealth, we have no Constitutional means to ascertain someone's total net worth, and tax them on the basis of that. All we can do is tax what they earn in any given year. Many really wealthy people no longer earn a high annual income. Some small businesses may earn a high income this year because of special circumstances, where next year, maybe they don't earn anywhere near as much... are they "rich" because they had a good year?

And in the end... is taking money out of the hands of business, entrepreneurs, capitalists.... and giving it to government, a good idea for the economy? Is the money better utilized by sending it to the IRS, or by investing it in a business or buying a yacht even? Which way stimulates the economy more?
 
Bfgrn said:
You are confused. Did you READ how the progressive taxation works? Didn't think so, because if you DID, you'd realize that the 5% increase only applies to any income OVER $250,000.

SO:
$260,000
-$250,000
=$10,000 x 5% = $500
Click to expand...

It still doesn't matter, it's money that isn't going back into the economy in the form of business expansion and new jobs. And I have looked through all the tables in all the tax forms for the past several years, I'm not seeing where you only have to claim income over a certain amount to pay a certain tax, they have a tax table, you look up the TOTAL of earnings, and there is your tax liability... it doest distinguish between money made over a certain amount.
 
Dixie said:
Because of several things... arbitrary amounts mean nothing... when I was a kid, everyone dreamed of being a millionaire... well, a million dollars just isn't that much money these days. When my Dad was a boy, a Coke cost .05 ...they are $1 now. The year after I was born, my parents bought a 3br home in a nice suburb, they paid $7,500... today, that wouldn't be a sufficient down payment on a comparable home. Values change over time, and that goes both ways... I suspect, in the midst of the Great Depression, if you had $100k, you were probably considered "rich" by the standards of the day.

The next thing is something I pointed out in the OP, the Great Misnomer! ...You see, you have fallen into this trap of thinking that people who happen to earn a high income in a given year, are "rich" or "wealthy" ....because of their tax return. We can't tax wealth, we have no Constitutional means to ascertain someone's total net worth, and tax them on the basis of that. All we can do is tax what they earn in any given year. Many really wealthy people no longer earn a high annual income. Some small businesses may earn a high income this year because of special circumstances, where next year, maybe they don't earn anywhere near as much... are they "rich" because they had a good year?

And in the end... is taking money out of the hands of business, entrepreneurs, capitalists.... and giving it to government, a good idea for the economy? Is the money better utilized by sending it to the IRS, or by investing it in a business or buying a yacht even? Which way stimulates the economy more?
Click to expand...

Oh so income is just arbitrary amounts? let's let all the bankers give up all their millions of dollars of bonuses then. Since it's all arbitrary....

You're a moron.
 
Dixie said:
Your math seems a little screwy, not sure if you calculated before you hit the bong or after, but I think you are a little off. 5% of 260k = 13k... Now, let's say this is a carpet cleaning business making $1 million a year... that's an extra $50k in tax.... which is coincidentally what the business owner is paying a typical employee in the carpet cleaning business. So, what do you think the smart businessman will do... sell his yacht and Mercedes? Cut up the wife's credit cards? Or maybe layoff Julio?
Click to expand...

Thanks for proving that you know NOTHING about either math or graduated tax rates. Now turn off your computer and go lie down.
 
Dixie said:
It still doesn't matter, it's money that isn't going back into the economy in the form of business expansion and new jobs. And I have looked through all the tables in all the tax forms for the past several years, I'm not seeing where you only have to claim income over a certain amount to pay a certain tax, they have a tax table, you look up the TOTAL of earnings, and there is your tax liability... it doest distinguish between money made over a certain amount.
Click to expand...

You are truly retarded.
 
for all you faux believers, there's no such thing as the Democrat Party. Your ignorance and brainwashing are showing.

back to the action...
 
AssHatZombie said:
Oh so income is just arbitrary amounts? let's let all the bankers give up all their millions of dollars of bonuses then. Since it's all arbitrary....

You're a moron.
Click to expand...

Ah.. notice how the first 'example' you throw out is the 'bankers' ...as if bankers in general are undeserving of bonuses because, well, they are bankers, and we all know what kind of people bankers are... how could they possibly be worthy of a bonus? We've conjured up this image for bankers, like Mr. Potter in It's a Wonderful Life... crabby old ogres who are heartless and greedy. Taking advantage of the poor and needy in society... all about the buck! Yes, that is what you are supposed to think of when you hear the word "banker" in these examples, right?

This is all part of the brainwash process, playing upon your simple-minded television perceptions of reality... all "bankers" are mean and evil, and this is why they don't deserve bonuses, and why you have to stand up and demand that republicans stop giving them money that should be helping the poor and downtrodden.... am I getting this about right, pinhead?

Here's what you don't seem to comprehend, if the banker doesn't get the million dollar bonus, that is one million dollars less out there in the economy, being spent and re-spent, creating jobs and need for staff to buy and sell with that money... and in the process, earn and pay more tax revenues. You see, in order to turn the economy around, you actually NEED for that banker to get the million dollar bonus, to have his board of directors think so highly of his skills to award him million dollar bonuses... even bigger bonuses as well... the more that is happening the better, it means the economy is growing and money is being spent. You NEED for that banker to order a corporate jet, so some company who makes corporate jets and hires hundreds of people, who can have an order to fill and purpose for remaining gainfully employed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top