TakeYouToTasker Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 1) Borrowing money isn't like borrowing money? 2) Me yes, but if I had $6 million, probably not There is a larger socail goal, but it isn't to simply pay down debt. Want to know what I'd do with extra revenue? There is no extra revenue. Extra implies that your obligations are being met. Regardless of how high a rate you tax me at, even at 100% which is the maximum you could possibly take, you can't even pay for the things that you purchase annually every single year, and the things you purchase don't build any equity. They are services and infrastructure that degrade in value and cannot be leveraged as future capital. You earn 40k per year, and your plan is literally to take out lines of credit which are larger than your annual earnings, and do this on an annual basis, which increase the amount of your new credit lines annually in order to continue to service your existing credit card debt, and to spend all of the money buying cotton candy which you plan to leave out in the rain. And you believe this will lead to prosperity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 2) Me yes, but if I had $6 million, probably not "Had?" "HAD?????" How did you go from talking about income to assets? You !@#$ing bozo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 (edited) "Had?" "HAD?????" How did you go from talking about income to assets? You !@#$ing bozo. Because he's a nitwit that doesn't understand the difference between income and wealth, which is probably the larger part of why he believes that frivilous spending and malinvestment lead to prosperity. It's also likely why he's at the lower end of the earnings spectrum. Edited September 11, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 I think debt is a good idea, it spreads more wealth and is good for investment. If people borrow and succeed, if businesses borrow and succeed, why shouldn't governments? I think the balanced budget amendment crowd should be tossed in jail...sort of not serious Neat, but people borrow under the assumption the balance will be paid back. Were an individual continue to run up increasing amounts debt such that servicing interest was now 10% of their annual budget, any rational lender would cut them off from further financing. Our government's current debt cycle looks more like a ponzi scheme than borrowing for investment. Assuming other governments will continue to buy our bonds in perpetuity then there is no problem, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 Neat, but people borrow under the assumption the balance will be paid back. Were an individual continue to run up increasing amounts debt such that servicing interest was now 10% of their annual budget, any rational lender would cut them off from further financing. Our government's current debt cycle looks more like a ponzi scheme than borrowing for investment. Assuming other governments will continue to buy our bonds in perpetuity then there is no problem, right? Looks like a ponzi scheme?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted September 11, 2013 Author Share Posted September 11, 2013 There is no extra revenue. Extra implies that your obligations are being met. Regardless of how high a rate you tax me at, even at 100% which is the maximum you could possibly take, you can't even pay for the things that you purchase annually every single year, and the things you purchase don't build any equity. They are services and infrastructure that degrade in value and cannot be leveraged as future capital. You earn 40k per year, and your plan is literally to take out lines of credit which are larger than your annual earnings, and do this on an annual basis, which increase the amount of your new credit lines annually in order to continue to service your existing credit card debt, and to spend all of the money buying cotton candy which you plan to leave out in the rain. And you believe this will le Yes, if you raise more in taxes there is more revenue for the government to spend Neat, but people borrow under the assumption the balance will be paid back. Were an individual continue to run up increasing amounts debt such that servicing interest was now 10% of their annual budget, any rational lender would cut them off from further financing. Our government's current debt cycle looks more like a ponzi scheme than borrowing for investment. Assuming other governments will continue to buy our bonds in perpetuity then there is no problem, right? How is it any different than when Hamilton created the first national debt and all the Jeffersonians were screaming it was going to bankrupt us? Don't worry, the debt will not cause the appocolypts. "Had?" "HAD?????" How did you go from talking about income to assets? You !@#$ing bozo. Lol, you are so stupid. So if I had 6 mill you think I'd be super worried if my income was 28 or 38%? And of course much lower on my investment income Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 Yes, if you raise more in taxes there is more revenue for the government to spend How is it any different than when Hamilton created the first national debt and all the Jeffersonians were screaming it was going to bankrupt us? Don't worry, the debt will not cause the appocolypts. To your fist point. Why does the government need more money to spend. If that's the case then why not tax all income at 100% and every American gets the equal amount regardless of effort. Would that make sense to you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted September 11, 2013 Author Share Posted September 11, 2013 Bull. But you'll never get a chance to find out. Well, I wasn't born to wealth like Romney or Bush for sure, but you never know Darin. I'm rich in my heart though To your fist point. Why does the government need more money to spend. If that's the case then why not tax all income at 100% and every American gets the equal amount regardless of effort. Would that make sense to you? No, let's just get rid of taxes, why have a government at all? See, anyone can make up stupid crap, don't be so proud of the crap you leave behind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 (edited) To your fist point. Why does the government need more money to spend. If that's the case then why not tax all income at 100% and every American gets the equal amount regardless of effort. Would that make sense to you? Jeez this thread has been riddled with speeling mistakes. Edited September 11, 2013 by meazza Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 Jeez this thread has been riddled with speeling mistakes. No spelllling mistake there. I meant my fist point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 (edited) How is it any different than when Hamilton created the first national debt and all the Jeffersonians were screaming it was going to bankrupt us? Exponentially. Is that enough or do we really need to discuss what has changed in international finance since the close of the 18th century in order to explain to you why your mortgage is a silly comparison to our national debt which was irrelevant to why the rich should pay more tax in the first place? Edited September 11, 2013 by Jauronimo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 (edited) No, let's just get rid of taxes, why have a government at all? See, anyone can make up stupid crap, don't be so proud of the crap you leave behind So oh wise one, please tell us what is the magical tax percentage that would make things all better. Lol, you are so stupid. So if I had 6 mill you think I'd be super worried if my income was 28 or 38%? And of course much lower on my investment income Did you mean you wouldn't be worried if your income taxes were 28 or 38%? Edited September 11, 2013 by Chef Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 (edited) Yes, if you raise more in taxes there is more revenue for the government to spend If there is any one thing that you should have learned in this thread, it's that spending is in no way indexed to revenue. And given the irresponsible and frivilous spending that the government currently engages in, why should they be empowered to levy higher taxes. How is it any different than when Hamilton created the first national debt and all the Jeffersonians were screaming it was going to bankrupt us? Don't worry, the debt will not cause the appocolypts.As with most things you attemp to discuss, you have an absolutely vacant understanding of the subject matter. Hamilton created the Nation Bank in order to pay off existing debt, not simply for the purpose of manufacturing additional debt. Edited September 11, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 Lol, you are so stupid. So if I had 6 mill you think I'd be super worried if my income was 28 or 38%? And of course much lower on my investment income Well, no...I don't think you'd be worried. But I think you're an idiot who doesn't understand the definitions of "net worth," "income," or "liquidity." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 (edited) This is like guys taking turns smacking a pinata. Very amusing! Edited September 11, 2013 by TheMadCap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 This is like guys taking turns smacking a pinata. Very amusing! That's what PPP stands for: Pinata Punching Punks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 This is like guys taking turns smacking a pinata. Very amusing! but pinatas are usually filled with candy & toys, not hot air and excrement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted September 16, 2013 Author Share Posted September 16, 2013 Good to see the recession is over for some people.... Five years after the financial crisis sent the fortunes of many in the U.S. and around the world tumbling, the wealthiest as a group have finally gained back all that they lost. The 400 wealthiest Americans are worth a record $2.02 trillion, roughly equivalent to the GDP of Russia. That is a gain of $300 billion from a year ago, and more than double a decade ago. The average net worth of list members is a staggering $5 billion, $800 million more than a year ago and also a record. The minimum net worth needed to make the 400 list was $1.3 billion. The last time it was that high was in 2007 and 2008, before property and stock market values began sliding. Because the bar is so high, 61 American billionaires didn’t make the cut. http://www.forbes.com/sites/luisakroll/2013/09/16/inside-the-2013-forbes-400-facts-and-figures-on-americas-richest/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted September 16, 2013 Share Posted September 16, 2013 Good to see the recession is over for some people.... http://www.forbes.co...ericas-richest/ But your messiah has presided over this jobless recovery which has seen the rich get richer while the poor get poorer. This has been the trend despite record highs in the number of people on welfare, collecting disability and receiving other forms of social assistance. How can this be? Please explain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted September 16, 2013 Share Posted September 16, 2013 But your messiah has presided over this jobless recovery which has seen the rich get richer while the poor get poorer. This has been the trend despite record highs in the number of people on welfare, collecting disability and receiving other forms of social assistance. How can this be? Please explain. Duh, the messiah could only fix so much because of the party of No. They've turned the summer(s) of recovery into a prolonged recession with their obstructionist behavior. Oh, and rich people are bad. Except the ones like Obama that aren't. And Romney's wife owns a horse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts