SCOTUS
- Thread starter 57Brave
- Start date
57Brave
Well-known member
I get it and said as much above.
no one has argued that the numbers are anything besides campaign fodder -- who are you showing this to ?
these numbers have been out for months promoted by all the (R) candidates, Clinton and O'Malley campaigns.
Your point, if there is one, is meaningless after tonight's results regardless
no one has argued that the numbers are anything besides campaign fodder -- who are you showing this to ?
these numbers have been out for months promoted by all the (R) candidates, Clinton and O'Malley campaigns.
Your point, if there is one, is meaningless after tonight's results regardless
acesfull86
Well-known member
Won't let you in...sound like wonderful places
acesfull86
Well-known member
You can't negotiate productivity and GDP growth
chop2chip
Well-known member
That's fair. It's definitely easier to leave France than the US. I have to believe there is a tax rate where people would consider it, but it likely wouldn't occur at the levels you are suggesting.
It was enough of a problem in France that Hollande was forced to repeal the tax. The super tax was his baby and the unintended consequences smothered it quickly.
This is where you start to lose me. You are making a lot of broad assumptions.
1. What do you mean it would encourage people to move up? I don't understand how levying an additional tax on the wealthy would provide extra incentive to become wealthy than that what already exists.
2. Mergers and acquisitions are good for business because they (1) encourage startups which create more jobs and spur innovation and (2)create economies of scale that lower costs for consumers (at least if the Justice Department is doing their job correctly in approving healthy mergers and acquisitions)
This isn't about simple job growth. This is about production of goods. We measure our wealth not in the number of hours we work at our job, but in the number of things that we can buy. If you raise taxes, it creates dead weight loss somewhere in the economy. Dead weight loss means less consumption which means a lower standard of living.
Now, taxes do serve a purpose in redistributing consumption. I'm not a crazy libertarian who thinks that the government is incapable of everything. The free market isn't going to do a good job taking care of the mentally ill, single mothers, children, etc., but I disagree with those that believe the government is the best resource forproviding for the middle class, which it seems like what most new initiatives are catered towards.
The bigger problem than tax rate is the effective tax rates that corporations ultimately pay (because, lets be real, when we say wealthy, we really mean Google, Apple, Wal Mart). I'm all in favor in creating additional barriers that keep companies from shifting profits to shell corporations in foreign countries. Cayman and Singapore shouldn't be collecting tax dollars that the US is rightfully entitled to just because Google has a really creative tax structure.
acesfull86
Well-known member
Ah, we're back to the "anyone who doesn't agree with me must be ignorant and uneducated" line of attack.
goldfly
<B>if my thought dreams could be seen</B>
goldfly
<B>if my thought dreams could be seen</B>
Why do you say "dude" a lot recently? Weird
Are you now saying an educated public doesn't create a civilized society?
sturg33
I
No, that isn't what happened at all
I quoted exactly what happened...
goldfly
<B>if my thought dreams could be seen</B>
I believe you think you did that
What I posted is a screen grab of what actually happened
sturg33
I
lol GOLDY, everything you screen grabbed was after post #27... which is my original comment. Which is what you brought up. And I quoted it exactly
goldfly
<B>if my thought dreams could be seen</B>
no, our conversation started at post 29
this gem:
post 37 is where i quoted that gem and said this:
you then said:
which i then went to prove you did actually say it
post 42 is where it gets good on your end though
i tell you where they have the authority here:
post 55 is where you said tried to change the argument to this:
post 65 is where i quoted your words (like this post) and showed that isn't what you were asking and is you trying to change the topic we were speaking about
when i did that you replied at post 68 with this:
that isn't about anything you and i were talking about
and now that all of the posts are in one post you can now see it
it also proves what i bolded as wrong:
well, i guess post 27 could be your original comment though but that was never any part of the conversation between us
you either you know that and are just trolling or you for some reason can't follow a conversation it seems
goldfly
<B>if my thought dreams could be seen</B>
post 27 and what you and 57 are talking about is irrelevant and post 29 is where i was involved as i just proved in post 155
but i am glad to know you are just trolling then and we can move past you looking like a fool in the thread for not knowing what cases the supreme court can be involved with
was a bundle of fun
sturg33
I
It's funny.
I made my original comment.
Then you came in with your nonsense.
I said something incorrect... which I then corrected when I realized it.
WHAT A STORY!
sturg33
I
By the way, you're still wrong. I never said "paying taxes is stealing"
I said taxing is people is stealing. It is either stealing from us today or stealing from future generations. You apparently do not believe that running trillion dollar deficits is stealing from future generations... and to that, I'd call you immoral.
I said taxing is people is stealing. It is either stealing from us today or stealing from future generations. You apparently do not believe that running trillion dollar deficits is stealing from future generations... and to that, I'd call you immoral.