[quote]vroom wrote:
While you might be happy with that, and be more than willing to lock up every poor person on the planet, there are alternatives. In particular, there are alternatives that make your nation stronger economically, meaning you can support a larger military, have a larger impact on the world, and so forth.
[/quote]
like what?
[quote]vroom wrote:
That’s a fairly slanted view of the past.
Anyway, look, it’s not flying in the face of capitalism to have a progressive taxation system. Neither is it flying in the face of capitalism to have reasonable controls on the operation of businesses or markets.
[/quote]
we don’t have reasonable controls. The gov’t is incapable of providing reasonable controls.
What the fuck…HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF THE JUDICIAL BRANCH.
This is complete bull shit. Where did you get this? Arbitrary taxation, protection, and regulation absolutly effect capitalism and our ability to complete globally. By your logic we could tax 80% of personal and corporate income. Try this. READ A BOOK ON ECONOMICS.
[quote]
Now, I do agree that the concept of wealth distribution is a bugaboo that drives a lot of people around the bend. However, regardless of the language used, I’m not aware of anybody promoting the concept of everyone earning the same or having the same standard of living. Nobody has suggested that we should tax people so heavily they will simply give up trying to get ahead.[/quote]
It doesn’t matter what idiots like you intend or suggest. The only thing that matters is the outcome you are incapable of understanding.
[quote]vroom wrote:
I didn’t say there would not be effects on the economy… but it isn’t changing the fundamental nature of it.
[/quote]
What exactly does this mean? If I take 90% of the toilet bowl cleaner you’ve been snorting it won’t change the fundemental nature of your retardation, but it will certainly change the degree of of damage and might save your life.
Trying to use market forces to guide their choices. Is this harder or easier with arbitrary regulation, taxation, subsidization, protectionism, etc.?
[quote]
Tax rates have been rising and falling around the world from time to time as circumstances have changed. Some would be happy to have higher taxes if it they could get spending and the deficit under control.[/quote]
What does higher taxes have to do with controlled spending? They are not mutually conclusive.
[quote]cyph31 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
vroom wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
One fucking TRILLION dollars in new spending. ONE TRILLION!!!
I didn’t hear you wailing when Bush was busy whacking the trillions button on the old deficit calculator.
However, back to the current, I’m a little leery of where you are getting your numbers and what they include. Just consider it another war… that will excuse any degree of spending, right?
Bush wasn’t doing it to spread the wealth.
a deficit is a deficit, in the end it will make you bankrupt[/quote]
this has nothing to do with deficit spending and everything to do with creating even more government dependence.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
we don’t have reasonable controls. The gov’t is incapable of providing reasonable controls.
[/quote]
It’s not incapable, but you’d have to elect people that would put them in place.
Yeah, and strangely, they don’t MAKE the laws nor do they gather evidence and arrest people who break the laws.
LOL. You aren’t saying anything that disagrees with what I was saying. Sure, if you enact stupid laws and policies of course it can impact the economy and competitiveness. Don’t be retarded.
If you can get past your ideology, to understand what the fuck people are actually saying, you’d have a better chance of knowing whats going on in the world…
[quote]vroom wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Why don’t you go read up on the issues. Read up on exactly what Biden has said he wants Americans to do, and compare/contrast that with his own life.
It’s called hypocrisy, vroom. Go look it up. I am sure that will fly over your head as well.
Yeah…
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTZiY2EyNjllZmI3MjBiODdiM2ViNjc5ZmYxNjI1Zjg=
[/quote]
You post a link that proves my point about your cluelessness.
Why are you here? Get off the fucking fence, go back to your fucking thinking tree, and shut the fuck up.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
vroom wrote:
I didn’t say there would not be effects on the economy… but it isn’t changing the fundamental nature of it.
What exactly does this mean? If I take 90% of the toilet bowl cleaner you’ve been snorting it won’t change the fundemental nature of your retardation, but it will certainly change the degree of of damage and might save your life.
People with capital, or who borrow to purchase it, produce goods and sell them to consumers – all using market forces to guide their choices.
Trying to use market forces to guide their choices. Is this harder or easier with arbitrary regulation, taxation, subsidization, protectionism, etc.?
Tax rates have been rising and falling around the world from time to time as circumstances have changed. Some would be happy to have higher taxes if it they could get spending and the deficit under control.
What does higher taxes have to do with controlled spending? They are not mutually conclusive.
[/quote]
To add to dhickey’s points:
A business makes decisions that maximize it’s profits.
The tax code is 12000 pages long.
That’s 1 page of tax rates and 11999 pages of loopholes.
So, businesses now make decision that maximize their AFTER-TAX profits.
And voila! Market forces have taken a back seat to government interference.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
…thinking tree…
[/quote]
I missed this.
Welcome back vroom.