Chef Jim Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 And the point that YOU'RE missing is that with these tax increases comes tax CUTS. By the most conservative estimates, 80% of Americans will have MORE money than they've had. That's 4 people with more for every 1 person with less. That's four people who CAN go to Disney, for the one that can't. So you agree that tax cuts stimulate the economy. Now you're getting it.
The Big Cat Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 Nice to know that in the few days I've been gone that your ability to process information is still lower than a worm's ass. What does that even mean? For someone who likes to tout himself as having all the answers, you sure do a good job of keeping them to yourself.
Chef Jim Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 Having close ties to a lot as-holes who work as investment bankers in NYC, I can tell you: no I'm not. A $500 meal to a rich person is the equivalent of a $25 meal to someone without money. The difference in amount does NOT reflect the difference in percentage. You don't get it do you. You take $10k away from a rich person that's $10k they're not spending on stuff today. They'll still invest for their future. And investment bankers don't do what I do, so they don't have a clue either.
The Big Cat Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 So you agree that tax cuts stimulate the economy. Now you're getting it. Yeah, they work when the majority of the people--the people who actually NEED (not COULD USE) the money--get them.
Chef Jim Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 Yeah, they work when the majority of the people--the people who actually NEED (not COULD USE) the money--get them. I don't even know where to begin with that one. At least with all this gloom and doom you have the wonderful knack to make me laugh...thanks.
Alaska Darin Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 What does that even mean? For someone who likes to tout himself as having all the answers, you sure do a good job of keeping them to yourself. I don't have all the answers. I simply know that a fresh layer of sh-- ain't making this sandwich taste any better. You people keep doing the same thing over and over but expect a different result. The solutions are worse than the problem. You let me know the very second that you're able to spend your way out of a problem caused by debt.
The Big Cat Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 You don't get it do you. You take $10k away from a rich person that's $10k they're not spending on stuff today. They'll still invest for their future. And investment bankers don't do what I do, so they don't have a clue either. Yeah, I get that. So I'll repeat myself from before: If you take 10k away from one guy and give 2.5k back to four, what's all the fuss? Especially if the 10k taken away was reserved for things like top shelf alcohol and top of the line meals, and the 2.5k going back pays for things like groceries, health care, and school supplies. I'll gladly sacrifice excess when the vast majority of people are struggling to survive.
The Big Cat Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 I don't have all the answers. I simply know that a fresh layer of sh-- ain't making this sandwich taste any better. You people keep doing the same thing over and over but expect a different result. The solutions are worse than the problem. You let me know the very second that you're able to spend your way out of a problem caused by debt. I don't even know where to begin with that one. At least with all this gloom and doom you have the wonderful knack to make me laugh...thanks. Okay, but it seems to me that you guys still support trickle DOWN over trickle UP. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the idea of trickle DOWN has only succeeded in widening the wealth gap whereas trickle UP has had far less practice in modern times to be written off and scored the way you've done here.
GG Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 If every American company like Coca Cola paid the American taxes, there would be such a mega spike is tax revenue for this country that income taxes could be all but nill. More money in American pockets means more spending, more spending means higher prices, badda bing, badda boom. Let's also not pretend that ALL of the 2/3 international revenue you mentioned comes from countries where taxes would be as lax as the country's where they set up their shelters to begin with. Again, we're talking about Coca Cola, a bit of an anomaly, don't you think? So you're saying that an American company should pay the higher US tax no matter where it's earned?
Chef Jim Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 (edited) Yeah, I get that. So I'll repeat myself from before: If you take 10k away from one guy and give 2.5k back to four, what's all the fuss? Especially if the 10k taken away was reserved for things like top shelf alcohol and top of the line meals, and the 2.5k going back pays for things like groceries, health care, and school supplies. I'll gladly sacrifice excess when the vast majority of people are struggling to survive. Stop it man...you're killing me. By the way we're not talking survival of a few people down on their luck. We're talking about stimulating the worlds largest economy. Oh and BTW, if you think that if the gov't takes $2500 from me that every penny is going to people who need it you have a lot to learn about government. Grow up a bit, live in the real world and come back to me. Edited February 27, 2009 by Chef Jim
bills_fan Posted February 27, 2009 Author Posted February 27, 2009 And the point that YOU'RE missing is that with these tax increases comes tax CUTS. By the most conservative estimates, 80% of Americans will have MORE money than they've had. That's 4 people with more for every 1 person with less. That's four people who CAN go to Disney, for the one that can't. Except for that little problem that only 2% of Americans make over $250k. And this 2% already pays 66%+ of the taxes in this country. You're not taking the 7500k and dividing it 4 ways, you are dividing it 98 ways. Doesn't go so far and the economy doesn't get nearly as stimulated.
The Big Cat Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 I don't have all the answers. I simply know that a fresh layer of sh-- ain't making this sandwich taste any better. You people keep doing the same thing over and over but expect a different result. The solutions are worse than the problem. You let me know the very second that you're able to spend your way out of a problem caused by debt. Also, our problems aren't caused (at least not exclusively) by debt. In simplifying the issue to that extent, you're the one demonstrating your lack of knowledge on this. Here, I'll come clean and tell you EXACTLY where my point of reference is from since you all know I'm too young to have any real-world application of any of this stuff. Then you can tell me how YOU know the things YOU do: I get my economic news from a few sources, namely the guests on Fresh Air, Common Sense with Dan Carlin, This American Life, and Democracy Now. These guests generally consist of economic scholars, Nobel Prize winners, etc. I listen to what they say, and they're NEVER totatlly in favor of Obama.
The Big Cat Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 So you're saying that an American company should pay the higher US tax no matter where it's earned? Well, then what makes an American company American?
Alaska Darin Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 Okay, but it seems to me that you guys still support trickle DOWN over trickle UP. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the idea of trickle DOWN has only succeeded in widening the wealth gap whereas trickle UP has had far less practice in modern times to be written off and scored the way you've done here. I don't support either - but don't let that stop you. The more the government has been involved in daily life, the more the gap has widened. In 1973, the government decided to get seriously involved in health care. How's that worked out for you?
The Big Cat Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 Except for that little problem that only 2% of Americans make over $250k. And this 2% already pays 66%+ of the taxes in this country. You're not taking the 7500k and dividing it 4 ways, you are dividing it 98 ways. Doesn't go so far and the economy doesn't get nearly as stimulated. Please show me where you're getting your numbers from.
The Big Cat Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 I don't support either - but don't let that stop you. The more the government has been involved in daily life, the more the gap has widened. In 1973, the government decided to get seriously involved in health care. How's that worked out for you? Well, firstly, you need to differentiate specifically which spending policy you disagree with. Is it the tax increases for the wealthy? Or is the stimulus package? Is the bank bailouts? I'll give you a hint, I only support two of those things, and I"m sure you can guess which ones.
The Big Cat Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 Stop it man...you're killing me. By the way we're not talking survival of a few people down on their luck. We're talking about stimulating the worlds largest economy. Oh and BTW, if you think that if the gov't takes $2500 from me that every penny is going to people who need it you have a lot to learn about government. Grow up a bit, live in the real world and come back to me. So are you saying American's AREN'T struggling right now? Are you referring to the stimulus package now, or are we (as we've been this entire time (or so I thought)) talking about tax increases for the wealthy?
Alaska Darin Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 Also, our problems aren't caused (at least not exclusively) by debt. In simplifying the issue to that extent, you're the one demonstrating your lack of knowledge on this. I never said the problems were caused exclusively by debt. Read the sentence again. But thanks for telling me I don't know what's going on, even though I've been stating on this board for a very long time that this situation was coming. Here, I'll come clean and tell you EXACTLY where my point of reference is from since you all know I'm too young to have any real-world application of any of this stuff. Then you can tell me how YOU know the things YOU do: I get my economic news from a few sources, namely the guests on Fresh Air, Common Sense with Dan Carlin, This American Life, and Democracy Now. These guests generally consist of economic scholars, Nobel Prize winners, etc. I listen to what they say, and they're NEVER totatlly in favor of Obama. Are these the same economists that completely missed this situation over the past 17 years? You'll forgive me for not giving a flying crap about their opinion.
The Big Cat Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 Stop it man...you're killing me. By the way we're not talking survival of a few people down on their luck. We're talking about stimulating the worlds largest economy. Oh and BTW, if you think that if the gov't takes $2500 from me that every penny is going to people who need it you have a lot to learn about government. Grow up a bit, live in the real world and come back to me. So are you saying American's AREN'T struggling right now? Are you referring to the stimulus package now, or are we (as we've been this entire time (or so I thought)) talking about tax increases for the wealthy?
Alaska Darin Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 Well, firstly, you need to differentiate specifically which spending policy you disagree with. Is it the tax increases for the wealthy? Or is the stimulus package? Is the bank bailouts? I'll give you a hint, I only support two of those things, and I"m sure you can guess which ones. I don't support any of them.
Recommended Posts