mrs.cos Posted February 2, 2013 Report Share Posted February 2, 2013 Spoken like a true Democrat. Hehe.. Not Tim .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V8 Beast Posted February 2, 2013 Report Share Posted February 2, 2013 I agree with most of your suggestions on austerity, just not now. Every percent of government spending pulled out of the economy causes an equal contraction in GDP. Now is not the time to institute austerity. If any lesson from the European financial crisis can be learned it is that. A flat tax is, by nature regressive. Meaning it impacts poor people far more dramatically than the rich. A flat tax would put immenely more pressure on the middle class. As for the poor, it would create far more dependency on social safety nets or, as some conservatives would have it, old people dying on the streets. I'm not saying it is greedy to complain about taxes, I'm saying it's naive. My take on everything... No matter how we approach it there will have to be a sacrifice in order to gain ground. The problem is no one wants to be the one to sacrifice. That and if its not done right the sacrifice is for nothing. Of the 3 main classes, the upper class may be the safest route... but even that has its consequences. You take from the rich, they have the power to put their loss back on the workers. Lower wages, lay offs, etc. This can severely harm the working class and economy. I would hope the billionaires would just take a little bit of a loss and adapt, but people dont work that way. They would rather lay off 1000 people and blame the government. If you tax everyone (like you said) people that are living paycheck to paycheck are taken under. This would put more people on government assistance. It also kills the economy as people would hold onto money instead of spending it. In the end we are taking 1 step forward to take 3 steps back. If you take money from the poor you see an increase in crime, children suffer, and you have a squeezing blood out of a turnip scenario. The return is not worth the risk. If you lower taxes as a whole, people will be happy and spend more while our debt gets bigger because they are still not spending enough. Its a lose win lose lose win lose situation. Everyone is right and wrong at the same time. All can work if done perfectly right.. but can you have perfection with that many hands in the cookie jar with different opinions on whats right? In closing...we need to start sports franchises over seas and start taking their money Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted February 2, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 2, 2013 but can you have perfection with that many hands in the cookie jar with different opinions on whats right? I believe you can but it has to start with a basic fundamental that the masses can't continue to increase the amount of support for those in need. In the end, people need to be encouraged and pushed to support themselves. There does need to be a raising of the bar and our society is not doing that. Not just people but local gov'ts too. I feel bad for the Orange Township and Powell fireman losing their jobs, but the station up on Presidential Parkway is a palace and many of the problems tie back to pensions and retirement plans that are too rich and I'm tired of the taxpayers having to continue funding a system that is broken. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V8 Beast Posted February 2, 2013 Report Share Posted February 2, 2013 (edited) I believe you can but it has to start with a basic fundamental that the masses can't continue to increase the amount of support for those in need. In the end, people need to be encouraged and pushed to support themselves. There does need to be a raising of the bar and our society is not doing that. Not just people but local gov'ts too. I feel bad for the Orange Township and Powell fireman losing their jobs, but the station up on Presidential Parkway is a palace and many of the problems tie back to pensions and retirement plans that are too rich and I'm tired of the taxpayers having to continue funding a system that is broken. No doubt the system is broken. I was thinking, and this came out of my brain. Its rough but I hope it gets my point across If you get the money from welfare it came from many citizens that were forced to pay taxes. If you get a job the money is coming from those same people. It was just acquired by purchases. The money then went to a CEO that gave it back to the person in the form of a paycheck. The CEO keeps their share and give the worker whats left. (best scenario) If you take that same money from the 5 CEO's unwillingly instead of 500 middle class... they will fire the people they used to give money to. Now instead of this person getting that money from the CEO willingly, they are getting it from multiple ceo's unwillingly in the form of welfare. Its a bad cycle that we are stuck in. The money is just going in circles and not fixing anything. Across the board we all have to suffer a little because we need to put more money in rotation... but no politician is going to piss everyone off Is this right? Opinions please, because this is what I think happens when the below occurs in this order. More people spending = more people working = more taxes being paid = improvement More people working = more people spending = more taxes being paid = improvement More taxes being paid = Less people working = less people spending = Not good Edited February 2, 2013 by V8 Beast Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted February 2, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 2, 2013 Its a bad cycle that we are stuck in. The money is just going in circles and not fixing anything. I agree and the key to ending the cycle is putting limits on the handouts and not continually increasing them. Same up top for our leaders. Cap their terms and quick making politics a "career" for them and pay wise, if so many political leaders are already millionaires, which they are, then don't pay them period. They don't need the money so why give it. That will weed out many who really aren't interested in helping anyway and IMO we need to pick and choose who runs so the ones in office so they aren't individuals hidden agendas as many do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V8 Beast Posted February 2, 2013 Report Share Posted February 2, 2013 I agree and the key to ending the cycle is putting limits on the handouts and not continually increasing them. Same up top for our leaders. Cap their terms and quick making politics a "career" for them and pay wise, if so many political leaders are already millionaires, which they are, then don't pay them period. They don't need the money so why give it. That will weed out many who really aren't interested in helping anyway and IMO we need to pick and choose who runs so the ones in office so they aren't individuals hidden agendas as many do. I have to agree. They are getting rewarded for doing a horrible job in many cases. I get its a job, but does a millionaire need a raise at the hands of tax payers when we are already in a huge debt? The money management is horrible at best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2highpsi Posted February 2, 2013 Report Share Posted February 2, 2013 The basic principle that could begin to fix this whole shit storm is lowering all the safety nets and allowing capitalism to do it's thing. This applies to the top and the bottom. ex. 1: So you have been out of work for a couple years, you aren't disabled, but you just haven't found a job "as good as your last"..... Time to make a decision. Live on surplus government peanut butter, cheese, and milk, or take a job on the highest rung of the ladder you can and start your climb back over. If you choose not to work just know that you won't have excess, sorry it just has to be that way. ex. 2: So you run a multi billion dollar business, you wagered billions and lost....... Sorry you just lost your business. It HAS TO GO BANKRUPT. Don't let the fear mongers fool you though. That doesn't mean it won't exist any more. It just means that all assets will be auctioned of to the highest bidder. They will then take over the company. Who loses in this deal? Well, anyone who had equity in the business. The same people that would have won if your bet was right. Lesson learned, dont make a bet you aren't willing to lose. People lose in life. We have to accept this. We are either a capitalist society, or we aren't. I'll tell ya what sure as shit doesn't work.... Capitalizing profits and socializing losses. As has been pointed out, there is only so much money in the system...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V8 Beast Posted February 2, 2013 Report Share Posted February 2, 2013 The basic principle that could begin to fix this whole shit storm is lowering all the safety nets and allowing capitalism to do it's thing. This applies to the top and the bottom. ex. 1: So you have been out of work for a couple years, you aren't disabled, but you just haven't found a job "as good as your last"..... Time to make a decision. Live on surplus government peanut butter, cheese, and milk, or take a job on the highest rung of the ladder you can and start your climb back over. If you choose not to work just know that you won't have excess, sorry it just has to be that way. ex. 2: So you run a multi billion dollar business, you wagered billions and lost....... Sorry you just lost your business. It HAS TO GO BANKRUPT. Don't let the fear mongers fool you though. That doesn't mean it won't exist any more. It just means that all assets will be auctioned of to the highest bidder. They will then take over the company. Who loses in this deal? Well, anyone who had equity in the business. The same people that would have won if your bet was right. Lesson learned, dont make a bet you aren't willing to lose. People lose in life. We have to accept this. We are either a capitalist society, or we aren't. I'll tell ya what sure as shit doesn't work.... Capitalizing profits and socializing losses. As has been pointed out, there is only so much money in the system...... :nod: Somebody has to lose, its life. Trying to make everyone happy is making it so that no one is happy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sol740 Posted February 2, 2013 Report Share Posted February 2, 2013 You setup the rules so "losing" lays at the feet of each person, as much as possible. There is nothing more fair. Like I said before I'm not against safety nets for those who truly need it. Fix the out of control spending, first and foremost. Cuts are necessary, and the same economists who say cuts hurt, are the same Keynesian economists that have thrown this country's value, and economy in the shitter. The same economists that decided the Fed backing houses for everyone regardless of credit was a great idea. The same economists that think the Fed backing everyones college loans is a great idea. These men are charlatans, and thieves, and they will always tell you shrinking the government, and cutting federal spending will be "catastrophic to society" because their coffers empty when the government gets less of your cash. No one should be taxed more than 17% effective, or get rid of the income tax altogether, and move to the Fairtax consumption tax. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furloaf Posted February 3, 2013 Report Share Posted February 3, 2013 My plan: 1) Cut welfare completely 2) National CCW reciprocity /shall-issue / stand-your-ground laws 3) Open season on shitheads 4) In a few years most of the problems with crime and crushing debt from social programs are simultaneously resolved (sarcastic of course) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iwishiwascool Posted February 3, 2013 Report Share Posted February 3, 2013 Well this certainly turned into a circle-jerk in my absence. Put that cracker away, I'm back. You setup the rules so "losing" lays at the feet of each person, as much as possible. There is nothing more fair. Like I said before I'm not against safety nets for those who truly need it. Fix the out of control spending, first and foremost. Cuts are necessary, and the same economists who say cuts hurt, are the same Keynesian economists that have thrown this country's value, and economy in the shitter. The same economists that decided the Fed backing houses for everyone regardless of credit was a great idea. The same economists that think the Fed backing everyones college loans is a great idea. These men are charlatans, and thieves, and they will always tell you shrinking the government, and cutting federal spending will be "catastrophic to society" because their coffers empty when the government gets less of your cash. No one should be taxed more than 17% effective, or get rid of the income tax altogether, and move to the Fairtax consumption tax. The first thing I'd say in our F2F meeting is: "You have no idea what you are talking about." What exactly is a Keynesian Economist? Most all economists agree that government stimulus and tax cuts have a stimulative impact on the economy, the disagreement is in which is better; not whether either approach is real. Likewise, most all economists agree that austerity measures will reduce economic output in direct proportion to said cuts. That's not opinion, it's math. Economic contraction, at the very least, reduces consumer confidence and ripples through the economy by reducing consumption. This is why austerity impacts economic growth as a multiple of the actual cuts. Cutting spending during economic contraction or a fragile recovery is dumb. Nothing that you feel or uninformed opinions swirling around your head will change that. A Fairtax and/or flat tax are by definition regressive, they impact the middle and poor classes far more than the do upper income earners. The poorer you are the greater your consumption as a percentage of your income, as much as 100% at the bottom. Most all of this is necessity. Upper income earners, whose necessity spending is a tiny fraction of their overall wealth, also have non-consumption vehicles to avoid a tax all together. It does not make sense to put the highest burden to pay the bills on those who can least afford it, does it? It might feel "fair" but it doesn't work as an economic model, despite what Mike Huckabee is telling you. The notion that a CEO will fire employees just because his personal taxes went up is a joke. As if a CEO is some punitive vengeful prick who reacts like a toddler whose toy was taken away. Employees are a function of demand. Let's say you are the CEO of a company that makes widgets mostly purchased by the middle class. Projected demand for 2013 is 10MM widgets. Just then, your taxes go up 4% but the middle class taxes remained the same. Demand for my widgets remains 10MM, regardless of how pissed I might be about my 4% tax increase, I still need the same number of employees to manufacture those widgets. Reducing employment to punish lawmakers would be cutting off your nose to spite your face. Personally, I would not notice if my taxes increased 4, 5, or even 7%. High functioning income earners don't say, "whelp, I might as well just give up" when faced with an obstacle. The reason they are high function income earners is because they are accustom to overcoming these types of obstacles. If I did notice the increase, I would ask myself what I have to do to increase my revenue to overcome the difference. Applying the mentality of pencil pushers and the mediocre to those who thrive on success is just silly. Those CEOs who get on CNBC and play into it are doing it to manipulate you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sol740 Posted February 3, 2013 Report Share Posted February 3, 2013 blah blah blah blah blah Short version of long windbag answer. DON'T DARE QUESTION OUR RECKLESSNESS, NEVER CHANGE ANYTHING BECAUSE THAT'S DANGEROUS,WE KNOW WHAT'S BEST FOR YOU. EVERYTHING IS FINE, STATUS QUO, OR THE SKY WILL FALL AND VOLCANOES WILL EAT YOUR FACES Read Hazlitts "Economics in One Lesson". That's all most layman need to know about economics and it's not complicated. Bottom line: Do you think you can spend your money more effectively than wasteful, asshole bureaucrats in Washington? Seriously? Huckabee? I'm an atheist, we often don't see eye to eye. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iwishiwascool Posted February 3, 2013 Report Share Posted February 3, 2013 Short version of long windbag answer. An ad hominem response indicating that you can not intellectually contest a single point. Read Hazlitts "Economics in One Lesson". That's all most layman need to know about economics and it's not complicated. Bottom line: Do you think you can spend your money more effectively than wasteful, asshole bureaucrats in Washington? I am intimately familiar with the Austrian School of economics. I like that you took the cover of Hazlitt's book to mean that you do not need to confront yourself with a single dissenting opinion. It explains a lot, especially your reference to the outdated term: "Keynesian Economist". The Austrian School does not factor in the economic reality of hoarding and fails to recognize the reality and domestic impact of globalism. Translation: The Austrian School did not anticipate that despite positive economic indicators, favorable consumer confidence, and the lowest taxes in decades. The Austrian model (if they actually used mathematic models) would predict domestic injection of private capital. The reality is that is remains on the sidelines in unprecedented magnitude. If those dollars were actually being injected into the economy, then we could argue who spends it more effectively. It's not and you simply cannot argue otherwise. Your "broken window fallacy" mentality is a reflection of the simplicity sought by Free Market enthusiasts; unfortunately, as is often the case, simplicity is confused with clarity. At no point did I state that nothing should be done, I've agreed with most of the people who have put actual ideas into the argument. Most of those things do need to be done but not yet. With 5%+ growth year over year and some structural fixes to the reason for the fragility, I definitely believe some austerity will be necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sol740 Posted February 3, 2013 Report Share Posted February 3, 2013 An ad hominem response indicating that you can not intellectually contest a single point. I am intimately familiar with the Austrian School of economics. I like that you took the cover of Hazlitt's book to mean that you do not need to confront yourself with a single dissenting opinion. It explains a lot, especially your reference to the outdated term: "Keynesian Economist". The Austrian School does not factor in the economic reality of hoarding and fails to recognize the reality and domestic impact of globalism. Translation: The Austrian School did not anticipate that despite positive economic indicators, favorable consumer confidence, and the lowest taxes in decades. The Austrian model (if they actually used mathematic models) would predict domestic injection of private capital. The reality is that is remains on the sidelines in unprecedented magnitude. If those dollars were actually being injected into the economy, then we could argue who spends it more effectively. It's not and you simply cannot argue otherwise. Your "broken window fallacy" mentality is a reflection of the simplicity sought by Free Market enthusiasts; unfortunately, as is often the case, simplicity is confused with clarity. At no point did I state that nothing should be done, I've agreed with most of the people who have put actual ideas into the argument. Most of those things do need to be done but not yet. With 5%+ growth year over year and some structural fixes to the reason for the fragility, I definitely believe some austerity will be necessary. You toss out the Huckabee handgrenade and point the "ad hominem ad hominem!" stick at me? Please, the last hundred or so years of boom/bust cycle, and inflation is all the proof I need. I believe in the broken window, as any logical person should. I've noticed those who don't tend to believe in the wholly non-existent, and would-be-illegal-in-court "social contract". Ideological differences I suppose. The over-complication of the dismal science is a purposeful sleight designed to make the layman afraid to question his own robbery. Keynesian is outdated? What country are you living in? Do we have a central bank that finger fucks our government and vice versa? Let me guess, socialized healthcare isn't socialism, and the leftist media is a construct of FoxNews and Limbaugh. Fuck it, QE4, trillion-dollar coins, deficit spending. Surely the signs of fiscal solvency, and the height of governmental responsibility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iwishiwascool Posted February 3, 2013 Report Share Posted February 3, 2013 Huckabee is the most notable proponent of the FairTax, was it a stretch? Is your mouth foaming yet? No economist would identify himself as a Keynesian, or Supply sider for that matter. The economic models are far more nuanced and complex than early 20th century economists could have imagined. Keynesians have divided into hundreds of different directions. The commonality behind Von Mises institute attendees is that they use their politics to inform their economics, not the other way around. It's easy when you reject using math to prove your philosophy. The broken widow fallacy is really great at exploiting the intuitive belief that Macroeconomics should operate just like a Microeconomic model. It works on people that don't understand things like the fact quantitative easing has less to do with the increasing liquidity than it does with battling deflation; That trillion dollar coins are just as ridiculous as a limit imposed on spending that has already been authorized by the people enforcing the limit; that deficit spending is exactly how this country came to a prosperous nation. Let me ask this: Do you think that austerity will have a positive impact on growth? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Got-Boost? Posted February 3, 2013 Report Share Posted February 3, 2013 My point is, you made it sound like youve got a great idea of programs that are sucking us dry that you'd eliminate, and your best idea you listed is about 1/4 of 1 percent. Will it add up? Sure. But you saying you can cut down the 15% of taxes by 2/3 and only give ideas of 1/2 of a percent dont jive. I don't have the time to type all that crap out, we'd be here for days. My point is cuts can be made and money can be saved in ALL areas and yet USG are still pissing it away and charging more and more without fixing the problems we currently have. Hell, I have a budget and live by it....why can't the government? You can't tell me in four years they haven't been able to get some kind of financial plan beside just charge more debt? I don't go out and use my credit card with no thought or plan on my future, do you? Why is it okay for our politicians to have an open checkbook? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2highpsi Posted February 3, 2013 Report Share Posted February 3, 2013 Is your mouth foaming yet? No economist would identify himself as a Keynesian, or Supply sider for that matter. Ofcoarse they wouldn't. But "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet" Many murderers call themselves artists Socialists hide behind a liberalist title and crazy tea partiers are "conservatives" The broken widow fallacy is really great at exploiting the intuitive belief that Macroeconomics should operate just like a Microeconomic model. It works on people that don't understand things like the fact quantitative easing has less to do with the increasing liquidity than it does with battling deflation; That trillion dollar coins are just as ridiculous as a limit imposed on spending that has already been authorized by the people enforcing the limit; that deficit spending is exactly how this country came to a prosperous nation. I will give you that the debt ceiling negotiations are about as necessary as a bubble gum ban in the lock jaw ward at Bellevue.(uselessly redundant if that wasn't clear) But both sides have grandstanded against opposing parties holding presidency. In fact Mr. Obama himself voted AGAINST raising the debt cieling in 2006. Maybe he didn't understand what he was really voting on? Let me ask this: Do you think that austerity will have a positive impact on growth? Do you think that short term (and unsustainable) effects should outweigh long term and actually sustainable effects? Short term results are good for one thing. Votes. When I get a cut, dumping hydrogen peroxide sure as hell doesn't make me feel better immediately. It actually feels worse for a bit. But in the long run, I know it's better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iwishiwascool Posted February 3, 2013 Report Share Posted February 3, 2013 I will give you that the debt ceiling negotiations are about as necessary as a bubble gum ban in the lock jaw ward at Bellevue.(uselessly redundant if that wasn't clear) I like Boiler Room too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V8 Beast Posted February 3, 2013 Report Share Posted February 3, 2013 The notion that a CEO will fire employees just because his personal taxes went up is a joke. As if a CEO is some punitive vengeful prick who reacts like a toddler whose toy was taken away.... I'm not just talking about just personal taxes. There are a lot of different options put in place for business owners to help them stay profitable and avoid burdens. The government could decided to remove some of the tax credits provided to the business as a way to get the ball rolling. Its something that has been discussed before. The argument against it is the programs are set up to allow the business owners to not only be profitable and help the economy, but to also supply jobs. Attacking their personal taxes wont have much of an impact as most separate personal and business expenses. As far as them acting like toddlers all I have to say is Obama Care... because thats exactly how some of the owners acted when presented with extra costs to their businesses. We know they are more than likely using it as an excuse to do things they have had on the books for a while. Its still acting like little babies though and giving them the excuse to pull the trigger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2highpsi Posted February 3, 2013 Report Share Posted February 3, 2013 I like Boiler Room too. I knew eventually you and I would agree on something in this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2highpsi Posted February 3, 2013 Report Share Posted February 3, 2013 I have something on the CEO taxation and employee comment too Ken. I'll come back to it later. But I'll give you a head start on the googling. Read up on how an S Corp is taxed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miller Posted February 3, 2013 Report Share Posted February 3, 2013 hey guys I don't think you all done your homework. i just reported 13,000 on my taxes most i've made in a few years. got some $475 from this eic thing and another 2,000 from college credits. thanks, gary Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iwishiwascool Posted February 3, 2013 Report Share Posted February 3, 2013 I'm not just talking about just personal taxes. There are a lot of different options put in place for business owners to help them stay profitable and avoid burdens. The government could decided to remove some of the tax credits provided to the business as a way to get the ball rolling. Its something that has been discussed before. The argument against it is the programs are set up to allow the business owners to not only be profitable and help the economy, but to also supply jobs. Attacking their personal taxes wont have much of an impact as most separate personal and business expenses. As far as them acting like toddlers all I have to say is Obama Care... because thats exactly how some of the owners acted when presented with extra costs to their businesses. I 100% agree with lowering taxes on small businesses and lowering capital gains on start-up and small business investment. Not that there is a lack of funding for good ideas right now, but it may free up even more capital for companies like mine who want to take outside capital to expand faster (though I personally don't). The corporate reaction to the ACA was a calculated ploy to influence the SCOTUS and legislators. It didn't work. Now you only hear fringe CEOs bring it up, many of whom are far more informed on how to sell franchises than how their books work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V8 Beast Posted February 3, 2013 Report Share Posted February 3, 2013 I 100% agree with lowering taxes on small businesses and lowering capital gains on start-up and small business investment. Not that there is a lack of funding for good ideas right now, but it may free up even more capital for companies like mine who want to take outside capital to expand faster (though I personally don't). The corporate reaction to the ACA was a calculated ploy to influence the SCOTUS and legislators. It didn't work. Now you only hear fringe CEOs bring it up, many of whom are far more informed on how to sell franchises than how their books work. I like you. That is all Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iwishiwascool Posted February 3, 2013 Report Share Posted February 3, 2013 I have something on the CEO taxation and employee comment too Ken. I'll come back to it later. But I'll give you a head start on the googling. Read up on how an S Corp is taxed. One of My LLCs is transitioning to an S-Corp right now. I'll just forward your comments to my CPA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.