TPS Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 He wants higher taxes on the 1%. Imagine... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 with the horrendous overspending on the part of the feds, is too little tax revenue really the problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 He wants higher taxes on the 1%. Imagine... Since any additional revenue would not make a dent in our deficit, did you ask yourself what was the point of Mr Gross's statement ? Resentment with the (fellow) rich ? . . . . . . . . . fairness ?. . . . . . . . shared misery ? perhaps you shouldn't discount the wacky socialist term too quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 Yup, not enough revenue or ways for the fed to rape the citizens. THAT'S our problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 (edited) He wants higher taxes on the 1%. Imagine... You unrepentant hack... Speak to Mr. Gross' vested interests, what with his fund being the single largest holder of US sovereign debt. Edited October 31, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted November 1, 2013 Author Share Posted November 1, 2013 You unrepentant hack... Speak to Mr. Gross' vested interests, what with his fund being the single largest holder of US sovereign debt. oh, I thought that was China.Please, he's doing it for his fund? Really? Since any additional revenue would not make a dent in our deficit, did you ask yourself what was the point of Mr Gross's statement ? Resentment with the (fellow) rich ? . . . . . . . . . fairness ?. . . . . . . . shared misery ? perhaps you shouldn't discount the wacky socialist term too quickly. if additional revenue won't make a dent in our deficit, does that mean we need less revenue to make a dent in it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 oh, I thought that was China. Please, he's doing it for his fund? Really? Aren't two of his biggest names either once on government payroll or are now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 if additional revenue won't make a dent in our deficit, does that mean we need less revenue to make a dent in it? What a logical conclusion to draw. You friggin' moron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 oh, I thought that was China. Please, he's doing it for his fund? Really? if additional revenue won't make a dent in our deficit, does that mean we need less revenue to make a dent in it? No. any other odd conclusions to be answered ? . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 Please, he's doing it for his fund? Really? Your devout lack of understanding of human motivation is an absolute disqualifier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 He wants higher taxes on the 1%. Imagine... It's a lot easier to advocate higher taxes once you've reached the pinnacle, and you have your five estates on five continents, and you have the estate plan all set up. I wonder what his tax outlook was when PIMCO was just a regular fund? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted November 1, 2013 Author Share Posted November 1, 2013 (edited) It's a lot easier to advocate higher taxes once you've reached the pinnacle, and you have your five estates on five continents, and you have the estate plan all set up. I wonder what his tax outlook was when PIMCO was just a regular fund? its funny to see people who aren't in his tax bracket be criticized by those who aren't. And to the other posters, I suppose you think closing the carried interest tax break and raising cap gains taxes as Gross suggested won't raise revenues? Is that what the heritage foundation says? Get it straight from the horses mouth (short video): http://www.bloomberg...dPerSIHNvw.html He makes the same argument I've made for years, lower taxes related to financial investments does not translate to more investment in fixed capital. Edited November 1, 2013 by TPS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 its funny to see people who aren't in his tax bracket be criticized by those who aren't. And to the other posters, I suppose you think closing the carried interest tax break and raising cap gains taxes as Gross suggested won't raise revenues? Is that what the heritage foundation says? Get it straight from the horses mouth (short video): http://www.bloomberg...dPerSIHNvw.html He makes the same argument I've made for years, lower taxes related to financial investments does not translate to more investment in fixed capital. Huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 its funny to see people who aren't in his tax bracket be criticized by those who aren't. And to the other posters, I suppose you think closing the carried interest tax break and raising cap gains taxes as Gross suggested won't raise revenues? Is that what the heritage foundation says? Get it straight from the horses mouth (short video): http://www.bloomberg...dPerSIHNvw.html He makes the same argument I've made for years, lower taxes related to financial investments does not translate to more investment in fixed capital. Weren't you one of the ones who argued vehemently against repealing the payroll tax reduction because it put several hundreds of dollars in everyone's take home pay - well, at least those with jobs and receiving 99 weeks of unemployment benefits? The argument was it stimulated the economy. Then, when it WAS repealed in spite of B.O.'s "promise" that no one's tax burden would be increased by a single dime the mantra became - well, it wasn't that important anyway and "everybody" knew it had to be repealed (to properly fund worker's SS benefits). Yeah, just another argument of convenience that was discarded like a used condom after heavy use during an election cycle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 its funny to see people who aren't in his tax bracket be criticized by those who aren't. And to the other posters, I suppose you think closing the carried interest tax break and raising cap gains taxes as Gross suggested won't raise revenues? Is that what the heritage foundation says? Get it straight from the horses mouth (short video): http://www.bloomberg...dPerSIHNvw.html He makes the same argument I've made for years, lower taxes related to financial investments does not translate to more investment in fixed capital. When the government shows they can live within their means, we can talk about giving them more money to spend. Until then, no sale. It's really that simple. We don't have a revenue problem at any level of government. We have a spending problem. Your solution to the heroin epidemic is to give the addicts even more junk. Pure friggin' genius, that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 When the government shows they can live within their means, we can talk about giving them more money to spend. Until then, no sale. It's really that simple. We don't have a revenue problem at any level of government. We have a spending problem. Your solution to the heroin epidemic is to give the addicts even more junk. Pure friggin' genius, that. But Nancy Pelosi said we have cut to the bare bones. http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-live/2013/09/pelosi-the-cupboard-is-bare-173214.html I disagree http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/10/us-spending-400000-to-help-preserve-mexican-male-prostitutes/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 its funny to see people who aren't in his tax bracket be criticized by those who aren't. And to the other posters, I suppose you think closing the carried interest tax break and raising cap gains taxes as Gross suggested won't raise revenues? Is that what the heritage foundation says? Get it straight from the horses mouth (short video): http://www.bloomberg...dPerSIHNvw.html He makes the same argument I've made for years, lower taxes related to financial investments does not translate to more investment in fixed capital. I know this much: less tax money taken from me means more money for me. you don't have to be an accountatnt or an economist to know that the mounting national debt is due to the feds overspending, not because they aren't taxing us enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted November 1, 2013 Author Share Posted November 1, 2013 (edited) I know this much: less tax money taken from me means more money for me. you don't have to be an accountatnt or an economist to know that the mounting national debt is due to the feds overspending, not because they aren't taxing us enough. Not completely true. The tax burden at the top, and that's what this is about, has declined significantly in the name of promoting jobs and growth. Those tax cuts that Gross talks about don't raise real capital expenditures, they raise the take-home income of the top. As for spending and deficits, off-budget spending on SS and the Meds are still in surplus, so the current deficit comes from on-budget sources. What's our biggest source of spending? Wars and the security state. Yes, we need to cut spending; but we also need to stop the giveaways to the top 1% in the name of voodoo economics--that's really what Gross is saying. Nanker: I don't defend Obama, and his words have nothing to do with mine. 3rd: I knew you couldn't get it. Edited November 1, 2013 by TPS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 Not completely true. The tax burden at the top, and that's what this is about, has declined significantly in the name of promoting jobs and growth. Those tax cuts that Gross talks about don't raise real capital expenditures, they raise the take-home income of the top. As for spending and deficits, off-budget spending on SS and the Meds are still in surplus, so the current deficit comes from on-budget sources. What's our biggest source of spending? Wars and the security state. Yes, we need to cut spending; but we also need to stop the giveaways to the top 1% in the name of voodoo economics--that's really what Gross is saying. Nanker: I don't defend Obama, and his words have nothing to do with mine. 3rd: I knew you couldn't get it. People keeping what they've earned is a terribly colored description of a "give away", which assumes an absolute lack of property rights. And no, social security is no longer in surplus, it's payed out more than it's taken in for several years now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 Not completely true. The tax burden at the top, and that's what this is about, has declined significantly in the name of promoting jobs and growth. Those tax cuts that Gross talks about don't raise real capital expenditures, they raise the take-home income of the top. As for spending and deficits, off-budget spending on SS and the Meds are still in surplus, so the current deficit comes from on-budget sources. What's our biggest source of spending? Wars and the security state. Yes, we need to cut spending; but we also need to stop the giveaways to the top 1% in the name of voodoo economics--that's really what Gross is saying. Nanker: I don't defend Obama, and his words have nothing to do with mine. 3rd: I knew you couldn't get it. Maybe you should explain it for those of us who have long ago pegged you as just a pompous ass, all in on theory rather than practicality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts