[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
zephead4747 wrote:1. high taxes on buisness owners will drive production costs up. we’ll be less competitive in foreign markets, and sell less goods. People will lose their jobs, and those with jobs will have a lower quality of life(less money+higher prices).
Universal healthcare makes other people pay for other people. We despise this notion. Not only is it inneficient, takes away incentive to create new treatments, and unfair. But the actual quality of care goes down.
Just like those high taxes hurt us in the 90s? Because that’s what they’d go back to.
[/quote]
Do understand what comparatively or relatively mean? Just becuase the economy was better when there happend to be higher taxes doesn’t mean it wouldn’t have even better with less taxes. Read a fucking book.
More Obama talking points with no thought put in. Congratulations.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Liberal supermajority = the elimination of 401k plans?
“US News & World Report published a story yesterday morning in which they uncovered little discussed legislation that would effectively eliminate 401(k) plans and create a second quasi-Social Security system in which the government would take control of the retirement plan savings of millions of Americans.”
[quote]orion wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
This is very straightforward stuff and I am stunned how many people do not understand.
NOTHING about it is straightforward. Our economy and financial institutions are so complicated that the guys who do this for a living disagree all the time.
In politics, economics, and finance, it’s safe to ignore anyone who says “this is straightforward stuff,” because it’s sooooo not.
It is pretty straight forward.
Planning an economy, even to some degree, is impossible.
End of story.
[/quote]
Who said anything about a command economy? Some additional regulation does not equal planned economy. If you have an out of control kid (the US economy), you lay some ground rules.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
It is astounding how naive some people can be regarding tax policy. If you tax a business they will do all that they can to regain their prior economic advantage. This is basic human nature isn’t it?
What can businesses do when they feel a stronger tax bite?
Raise prices.
Cut wages, or at least slow the progression of those wages.
If the tax bite is serious enough they will finally stop or reduce the speed of expansion. This will cause less people to be hired, or perhaps even some to be laid off.
In short, business will find a way to make more and spend less.
This is an irrefutable reaction to higher taxes.
So…tell me how is this good for the economy?[/quote]
Yeah you’re right. This is so simple, you don’t need to go to school to understand it! You don’t need a degree! All you need to do is let Mick28 from the T-Nation forum break it down real simple-like for you.
Besides, what does Warren Buffet know? Why is he endorsing Obama? It’s so simple, doesn’t he know Obama would be bad for the economy? Same thing for Joesph Stiglitz. He ought to know better. As should Paul Krugman. All the McCain-Palin supporters are way smarter than these guys.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
orion wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
This is very straightforward stuff and I am stunned how many people do not understand.
NOTHING about it is straightforward. Our economy and financial institutions are so complicated that the guys who do this for a living disagree all the time.
In politics, economics, and finance, it’s safe to ignore anyone who says “this is straightforward stuff,” because it’s sooooo not.
It is pretty straight forward.
Planning an economy, even to some degree, is impossible.
End of story.
Who said anything about a command economy? Some additional regulation does not equal planned economy. If you have an out of control kid (the US economy), you lay some ground rules.
[/quote]
In this case, I’d say the parent is out of control. Out of control, drunk on authority, stealing a portion of the child’s lawn mowing wages to redistribute to his couch potato siblings, and all too eager to puninsh the child for the parent’s own screw-ups.
Do understand what comparatively or relatively mean? Just becuase the economy was better when there happend to be higher taxes doesn’t mean it wouldn’t have even better with less taxes. Read a fucking book.
[/quote]
Ok, you get that higher taxes have led to higher growth than lower taxes right? Causation aside, the argument that higher taxes will hurt growth just hasn’t happened.
We currently have incredibly low taxes and have gotten historically low real GDP to go along with it. It’s just a phony argument, and proof that you might be in need of a few books yourself, or at least google or something.
Please tell me people don’t come to this guy for economic advise. I think I am now dumber just having read this.[/quote]
Howard Zinn is the nutjob darling historian for the left - see his “people’s history of the united states,” for good laughs. I guarantee you that Obama is a fanboy of his. Obviously the feeling is mutual.
Do understand what comparatively or relatively mean? Just becuase the economy was better when there happend to be higher taxes doesn’t mean it wouldn’t have even better with less taxes. Read a fucking book.
Ok, you get that higher taxes have led to higher growth than lower taxes right? Causation aside, the argument that higher taxes will hurt growth just hasn’t happened.
We currently have incredibly low taxes and have gotten historically low real GDP to go along with it. It’s just a phony argument, and proof that you might be in need of a few books yourself, or at least google or something.
[/quote]
Correlation is not causation.
Higher taxes have historically only “led” to less money in the pocket of actual taxpayers.
Do understand what comparatively or relatively mean? Just becuase the economy was better when there happend to be higher taxes doesn’t mean it wouldn’t have even better with less taxes. Read a fucking book.
Ok, you get that higher taxes have led to higher growth than lower taxes right? Causation aside, the argument that higher taxes will hurt growth just hasn’t happened.
We currently have incredibly low taxes and have gotten historically low real GDP to go along with it. It’s just a phony argument, and proof that you might be in need of a few books yourself, or at least google or something.
Correlation is not causation.
Higher taxes have historically only “led” to less money in the pocket of actual taxpayers. [/quote]
You can’t have it both ways. Morons are arguing higher taxes will hurt the economy. Besides the fact that it is false, it also is an argument of causation.
It seems pretty obvious, but there’s more to the economy than the tax rate on the top quintile.
Historically speaking much higher taxes correlate to much higher growth. They didn’t cause the growth per se, any more than conservative tax cuts have put them on the bottom of the pile over and over again in terms of economic growth.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Our only hope is that the Dems will use their power like the Republicans did, from 2001 to 2006. They basically reneged on everything we hired them for, so maybe the criminal libs will do the same.
Bush was about as conservative as a bag of doughnuts. Since Obama is a criminal, we can hope he’s not the real lib he portrays himself to be and is a phony too.
[/quote]
On the contrary. He’s 100 times more liberal than he’s campaigning on and yes he will renege on his promises and everybody will see their taxes increase… everybody.
I guarantee you they have been discussing the gullibility of the voting public behind closed doors this whole season. I can almost hear it. [quote]“Billy promised long and loud he would not raise their taxes and he did it in his first month. They reelected him. We have an ever increasing population of brain dead college kids and retired dependent drones that will be even easier. Just promise what you have to to get in office and sign our bills. The bonus is that 4 years from now they’ll still be blaming Bush for anything bad that might be happening. snicker snicker”[/quote]
Do understand what comparatively or relatively mean? Just becuase the economy was better when there happend to be higher taxes doesn’t mean it wouldn’t have even better with less taxes. Read a fucking book.
Ok, you get that higher taxes have led to higher growth than lower taxes right? Causation aside, the argument that higher taxes will hurt growth just hasn’t happened.
We currently have incredibly low taxes and have gotten historically low real GDP to go along with it. It’s just a phony argument, and proof that you might be in need of a few books yourself, or at least google or something.
Correlation is not causation.
Higher taxes have historically only “led” to less money in the pocket of actual taxpayers. [/quote]
Higher taxes led to higher growth? What? Where in the fuck do you get that? It is a fact that the inflow of money into the hands of the government has increase 20% with the onset of the lower taxes. Now what has increased signifigantly is the spending and that is what has caused the increased debt. The spending has grown astronomically, which I disagree with, but that is what is actually going on.
Economy has little to do with how much money people have. It has every thing to do with how much money is moving in the free market. If the government is hording money, then there is less moving, and that is a bad thing.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
orion wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
This is very straightforward stuff and I am stunned how many people do not understand.
NOTHING about it is straightforward. Our economy and financial institutions are so complicated that the guys who do this for a living disagree all the time.
In politics, economics, and finance, it’s safe to ignore anyone who says “this is straightforward stuff,” because it’s sooooo not.
It is pretty straight forward.
Planning an economy, even to some degree, is impossible.
End of story.
Who said anything about a command economy? Some additional regulation does not equal planned economy. If you have an out of control kid (the US economy), you lay some ground rules.
[/quote]
But it is not about ground rules.
The state quota of the US is 40% which means 40% is already a command economy that lives off of and slowly strangles the rest that isn´t.
If it was just about ground rules noone would have a problem with that.
We currently have incredibly low taxes and have gotten historically low real GDP to go along with it. It’s just a phony argument, and proof that you might be in need of a few books yourself, or at least google or something.[/quote]
Incorrect - we don’t have “historically low” GDP growth during our “low tax” era. As a fan of Googling, you could have determined this yourself, but since I am here to help out, see page 2 of this PDF:
Our GDP since roughly 1982 has been in the same range.
Further to your ignorance, our current recession doesn’t have anything to do with tax rates - it has everything to do with variables outside of the tax rate. However, the tax rate can affect that recession, primarily by encouraging capital development and influx of capital generally. In an already weakened economy, you don’t add another layer of restraint on growth - which an increase in taxes certainly is.
Our low “dips” in GDP have been caused by the tech-wreck, terrorist attacks, and bungled housing policy inducing moral hazard. The tax rate can help the current situation or hurt it - a tax raise will hurt it, and few people not driving an opportunistic agenda to shoehorn in a New New Deal agree.
[quote]100meters wrote:
You can’t have it both ways. Morons are arguing higher taxes will hurt the economy. Besides the fact that it is false, it also is an argument of causation.[/quote]
Taking money ot of the private sector and allowing the government to redistribute it is horribly inefficient, as is most government endeavors.
It is not an “argument for causation”. There are a few more inputs into the equation than the government.
The Cowboy win superbowls only when there is a liberal congress. 5 rings - 5 democrat controlled congress’s. Using your flawed sense of reality - the democrats cause the Cowboys to win Super Bowls.
To act as if they are a goose who lays golden fucking eggs for the government is harmful to the economy. particularly sense most all of the employers in the country are in the top 20% of income producers.
Still not causation. FDR went fucking nuts taxing, borrowing and spending in the early 30’s. It made the depression worse and longer. Carter? Please. Clinton? He has the revolution of 1994 to thank for balancing the budget - not the tax rates.
So what, exactly, is the purpose of increasing the tax rate on the rich? It has been proven time and again that when tax rates are reduced, revenue to the US Treasury increases. Reagan and Bush both increased Treasury revenues to all time highs by decreasing tax rates. Go figure.
If the purpose of taxing income is purely for creating a revenue stream for the government, then what possible reason could there be for increasing the taxes only on the rich?
Do understand what comparatively or relatively mean? Just becuase the economy was better when there happend to be higher taxes doesn’t mean it wouldn’t have even better with less taxes. Read a fucking book.
Ok, you get that higher taxes have led to higher growth than lower taxes right? Causation aside, the argument that higher taxes will hurt growth just hasn’t happened.
We currently have incredibly low taxes and have gotten historically low real GDP to go along with it. It’s just a phony argument, and proof that you might be in need of a few books yourself, or at least google or something.
[/quote]
Every part of this is factually inaccurate. Where do you get this shit? This absolutly defies logic.
Do understand what comparatively or relatively mean? Just becuase the economy was better when there happend to be higher taxes doesn’t mean it wouldn’t have even better with less taxes. Read a fucking book.
Ok, you get that higher taxes have led to higher growth than lower taxes right? Causation aside, the argument that higher taxes will hurt growth just hasn’t happened.
We currently have incredibly low taxes and have gotten historically low real GDP to go along with it. It’s just a phony argument, and proof that you might be in need of a few books yourself, or at least google or something.
Every part of this is factually inaccurate. Where do you get this shit? This absolutly defies logic.[/quote]
[quote]100meters wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Do understand what comparatively or relatively mean? Just
We currently have incredibly low taxes and have gotten historically low real GDP to go along with it. It’s just a phony argument, and proof that you might be in need of a few books yourself, or at least google or something.
[/quote]
Wealth of Nations - Adam Smith
Human Action - Ludwig Von Mises
Economics 101 - Murray Rothbard
Economics in One Lesson - Henry Haslette
What it Means to Be a Libertarian - Charles Murray
In Our Hands - Charles Murray
Libertarianism - David Boaz
Free to Chose - Milton Friedman
These are just the ones I can remember off the top of my head. I also several lectures from Rothbard, Von Mises, and Friedman. I have also read quite a bit on the net from Smith, Von Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, etc. What have you read?