Bolas 5 #26 July 21, 2011 So does this proposal also plan on changing the inheritance tax laws that allow living trusts and foundations?Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #27 July 21, 2011 yep - and a larger increase in tax than the bloomberg article suggests. i see no reason why a decent estate tax shouldn't affect easily 10% of the population. then the tax havens have to be closed down and that money brought back into the economy. remember everything the rich contribute means less burden on the middle class...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DougH 270 #28 July 21, 2011 Quotethat's 34 billion more than you've suggested so far... I haven't suggested any because I know it isn't as simple you make it seem. You were making the claim the tax increases on the rich would get us a long way to a solution: Quotewell, if we start with a large tax increase on the rich (them having the money and all) we're a good way down the road to balancing the budget... Taxing the rich isn't going to do it. In the long run I think we are looking at a major reduction in medicare and social security, but only after the boomers are in the grave. They are to selfish to own up to the fact that their elected governments robbed social security, and that medicare was really political pandering that we couldn't afford in the long run. Tax rates on all income brackets is going to go up considerably. They are going to slash most deductions that currently benefit the middle class. You will see some sort of federal indirect tax like a value added tax that is going to impact all social classes. Defense spending is going to have to go down big time. The size of the government in general is going to have to shrink. It is going to suck for everyone, but that is what happens when you get used to a standard of living that was debt financed."The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DougH 270 #29 July 21, 2011 Quoteyep - and a larger increase in tax than the bloomberg article suggests. i see no reason why a decent estate tax shouldn't affect easily 10% of the population. then the tax havens have to be closed down and that money brought back into the economy. remember everything the rich contribute means less burden on the middle class... So what happens to family businesses when you start imposing a estate tax that kicks in under 1M. What happens to the people that work for them. You over simplify your positions because it wouldn't suit your argument to consider how really freaking complex all of this is!"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #30 July 21, 2011 it's very simple - the value of labour has to be increased (so ordinary citizens can live without getting into debt) and the value of capital has to be reduced. the balance between the two has been getting steadily more and more out of kilter since world war 2. it can be either done nicely with the rich agreeing to pay more or we all go to war (which will increase the value of labour but not in a nice way)...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DougH 270 #31 July 21, 2011 If it was so simple you should have no problem putting together some modeling and projections that quantify all of the stuff that you claim. Please explain how you lower the value of capital while at the same time increasing the value of labor in a dollar denominated mostly open market economy. I won't go as far as saying you are making shit up, but I think it is hilarious that you simplify massively complex economic concepts into four or five line sentances."The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,119 #32 July 21, 2011 >So what happens to family businesses when you start imposing a estate >tax that kicks in under 1M. It hurts businesses. People get laid off. And what happens when you cancel that ten billion dollar defense contract? It hurts businesses. People get laid off. And what happens when you increase taxes on the poor and they can't afford Twinkies at Wal-Mart? It hurts Wal-Mart. People get laid off. There are no easy solutions, only less painful ones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #33 July 22, 2011 QuoteCutting spending that actually does something to help the bulk of the poorest citizens is not something history will look lightly upon from a supposed great nation. Like the half trillion dollars that Obamacare cut from Medicare?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #34 July 22, 2011 QuoteQuoteCutting spending that actually does something to help the bulk of the poorest citizens is not something history will look lightly upon from a supposed great nation. Like the half trillion dollars that Obamacare cut from Medicare? While trying to get a deal with the low life scumbags you and your ILK elected so that the country does not go into default like you want. Strange Patriotism there bubba Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #35 July 22, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteCutting spending that actually does something to help the bulk of the poorest citizens is not something history will look lightly upon from a supposed great nation. Like the half trillion dollars that Obamacare cut from Medicare? While trying to get a deal with the low life scumbags you and your ILK elected so that the country does not go into default like you want. Nope - part of the original bill. Nice try, though. QuoteStrange Patriotism there bubba You're the one supporting the bill, not I.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DougH 270 #36 July 22, 2011 Bump for Dreamdancer to post his economic models and projections for his simple solutions to complex problems. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #37 July 22, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteCutting spending that actually does something to help the bulk of the poorest citizens is not something history will look lightly upon from a supposed great nation. Like the half trillion dollars that Obamacare cut from Medicare? While trying to get a deal with the low life scumbags you and your ILK elected so that the country does not go into default like you want. Nope - part of the original bill. Nice try, though. QuoteStrange Patriotism there bubba You're the one supporting the bill, not I. Uh I support cutting spending and raising revenue from those who actually have any revenue anymore to fix the results we find ourselves in by those who BELIEVED in the GOAT FUCK STUPID VOO DOO DOO Economics that have torn down our country since 1981. Total deficit in 1980.. 700 BILLION dollars... a few rePUBIClown wars and administrations later.. we are where we are.. Thank you for all your hard work in electing the GOAT FUCK STUPID Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DougH 270 #38 July 22, 2011 I like how we all can talk around here like adults. That is the great thing about speakers corner, we can go through the talking points without degrading to the level of middle schoolers. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #39 July 22, 2011 QuotePlease explain how you lower the value of capital while at the same time increasing the value of labor in a dollar denominated mostly open market economy. increase the value of labour by increasing the minimum wage. lower the value of capital (making money out of money) by taxing it effectively...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,119 #40 July 22, 2011 >increase the value of labour by increasing the minimum wage. Result - companies move jobs to Mexico, Canada and China so their products are more competitive. Fewer people employed overall, but the ones who are employed make more money. And once again the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DougH 270 #41 July 22, 2011 QuoteQuotePlease explain how you lower the value of capital while at the same time increasing the value of labor in a dollar denominated mostly open market economy. increase the value of labour by increasing the minimum wage. lower the value of capital (making money out of money) by taxing it effectively... Do you think you can actually develop that idea your pushing beyond one sentance. Here let me let you get started: A sizable raise in the minimum rase will do what to the demand for worker? Producers will __________ the additional costs of production on to consumers. Raising the cost of capital will reduce __________ in the economy."The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #42 July 22, 2011 Quote>increase the value of labour by increasing the minimum wage. Result - companies move jobs to Mexico, Canada and China so their products are more competitive. Fewer people employed overall, but the ones who are employed make more money. And once again the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. or result - money is put into the hands of people who will use it more efficiently than the rich boosting productivity...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DougH 270 #43 July 22, 2011 Not in a capitalist market economy it doesn't. Price floors increase the supply of an item and decrease the demand. This is basic economic 101 stuff. If your going to claim things that are contrary to the generally accepted fundamentals to the way markets work then you should develop your ideas and support your points. You are making claims that you can not support, and that you really don't understand."The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #44 July 22, 2011 QuoteQuotePlease explain how you lower the value of capital while at the same time increasing the value of labor in a dollar denominated mostly open market economy. increase the value of labour by increasing the minimum wage. lower the value of capital (making money out of money) by taxing it effectively... Cost and value are separate issues, although once cost becomes unacceptably high for a given value/source combination people find other markets and market alternatives. Jobs are lost when that value is in the form of labor. In the garment and foot wear manufacturing industry Chinese labor has become too expensive so production has moved to lower cost places like Cambodia where the current industry minimum wage is only $61 / month. With US grocery worker labor costs increasing stores moved to self-service checkout lines where a single clerk can run four at a time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #45 July 22, 2011 QuoteNot in a capitalist market economy it doesn't. in a 'capitalist market economy' the rich will build up their financial position until there isn't enough money for the general populace to live on (forcing them to borrow) and the system crashes. basic stuff...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #46 July 22, 2011 Quote Quote Not in a capitalist market economy it doesn't. in a 'capitalist market economy' the rich will build up their financial position until there isn't enough money for the general populace to live on (forcing them to borrow) and the system crashes. basic stuff... I gotta admit I really enjoy what you post"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,119 #47 July 22, 2011 >or result - money is put into the hands of people who will use it more efficiently . . . It will indeed put more money into the hands of Chinese laborers, and that will help boost China's economy. But that doesn't help us. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DougH 270 #48 July 22, 2011 Quote Quote Not in a capitalist market economy it doesn't. in a 'capitalist market economy' the rich will build up their financial position until there isn't enough money for the general populace to live on (forcing them to borrow) and the system crashes. basic stuff... I like how you are bouncing around. We started with you proposing that a tax on the "rich" would take a sizable chunk out of the deficit. I showed you based on the 2006 census data that a 100% tax on people over 250K wouldn't get us there. I still haven't seen any actual numbers from you about how you would propose to structure a tax increase that will fix this problem. Then you bounced on to the estate tax, another thing that wouldn't even put a dent in the deficit. Then you bounced around to some pie in the sky statement about rebalancing the "value" of wages and capital. I asked you to back that up, but you can't. Now you are finally on moving from capitalism to some other economic model. Comic gold! "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #49 July 22, 2011 Quote>or result - money is put into the hands of people who will use it more efficiently . . . It will indeed put more money into the hands of Chinese laborers, and that will help boost China's economy. But that doesn't help us. you're still importing labour from mexico. chinese wages are going up. not every job can be exported. at the worst you see more money going to the chinese working class (all in all, on a global scale a good thing) at the best i see more money going to the us working class. once again not a bad result...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #50 July 22, 2011 QuoteWith US grocery worker labor costs increasing stores moved to self-service checkout lines where a single clerk can run four at a time. so productivity increased fourfold for a small increase in wages... (billvon will be here soon telling us that it is in fact the chinese labourer that has benefited - but i can't see how)stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
