Tweet
I really thought that you were obfuscating earlier, but you're actually taking this argument seriously. Awesome. 
-
"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-Bokonon -
I am sorry you can't handle the fact that everything I have said is true, and you haven't really said a relevant thing yet.
And my arguement about why the captial gains should not be raised is based on the affect it will have on the economy. The MC thing only illustrates how self defeating Obama's rational is. You would know this if you had read the thread.
Has Obama endorced nuclear power yet? No?"The DPRK is still in a state of war with the U.S. It's called a black out." - Che explaining why orbital nightime pictures of NK show few lights. Seriously.Comment
-
Because the middle class outnumbers the upper class. Right. I daresay it's the third indisputable fact.
"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
-
So, lets recap.
Ramo: Not a relevant thing said.
Patroklos: Illustrated Obama's stated rational is self defeating.
Sounds like a normal Ramo temper tantrum
"The DPRK is still in a state of war with the U.S. It's called a black out." - Che explaining why orbital nightime pictures of NK show few lights. Seriously.Comment
-
Ok, so this is where you declare victory. It's great that you have a victory post up every time you do this.
Three indisputable facts!"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
-
All I did was provide an accurate summary of the last two pages. That you interpret that as a victory post is your deal.
Very interesting though
"The DPRK is still in a state of war with the U.S. It's called a black out." - Che explaining why orbital nightime pictures of NK show few lights. Seriously.Comment
-
Patroklos, this would be much more interesting if you actually knew what you were talking about, instead of spewing the party line...Originally posted by Patroklos
I said it affects MORE middle class people, and that those fewer dollars mean more to middle class people than the larger amounts taken from the rich will to the rich. Physical dollars collected is not the sum total of effect.
I stated myself that the rich will pay the majority of the phyiscal dollars, that is irrelevant to what I was saying.
It is a classic lety arguement for rich taxation, there is no good reason to tax all CGs at the same rate especially given Obama's leanings. I don't oppose a CGT hike because I love rich poeple, I oppose it because it will **** the economy. But if there has to be one for forms sake, spare the average joe shmoe investor just trying to make some extra scratch from money he was wise enough to not spent on plasma televisions.
There are plenty of reasons to dispute the CGT hike. Its minimal effect on the true middle class investor is NOT one of them, however.
If it costs an extra $5.30 per person, for 100,000,000 people, i'm sure you'd still think it is relevant that it affected 'more people' ... but you would still be horribly, horribly wrong (about it being relevant, not the actual fact).<Reverend> IRC is just multiplayer notepad.
I like your SNOOPY POSTER! - While you Wait quote.Comment
-
Cutting spending has a negative effect on the economy, just as taxing does.Originally posted by Aeson
I'd prefer we cut spending. We have a better chance to fund our necessary spending with a healthy economy. It's hurting enough already without undermining it more.
We have it backwards (at best). We reduced capital gains while the economy was booming (bubblicious), then want to increase it while the economy is hurting?
I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett KavanaughComment
-
Try a dozen or so a day. Yes, you will pay the tax when you retire, but not generally at other times in your life.Originally posted by rah
Just because you prepared a dozen or so tax returns we're supposed to trust you. Hmmm no.
A lot of middle class retirees would be affected.I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett KavanaughComment
-
Hasn't Keynesian economics been debunked enough already? Spending for the sake of spending doesn't improve the economy.Originally posted by Kidicious
Cutting spending has a negative effect on the economy, just as taxing does.-rmsharpeComment
-
I don't do rich people's taxes. I do people who are upper middle class and below. But my clients that pay the CGT are generally retired or make a mistake because stock brokers don't always consider the CGT when they give advice.Originally posted by Patroklos
Everyone who has capital gains will be affected, no?
Of the individuals who own stocks are more of them rich or middle class?I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett KavanaughComment
-
Well, of course it does, at least in the short term. That government spending employes SOMEONE or gets spent in the economy as consumption after all.“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)Comment
-
I suppose in the same way that the broken windows fallacy "works."Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Well, of course it does, at least in the short term. That government spending employes SOMEONE or gets spent in the economy as consumption after all.
-rmsharpeComment
-
Cutting spending removes money from the economy the same way that taxing does. You shouldn't need to be a certain kind of thinker to understand that.Originally posted by rmsharpe
Hasn't Keynesian economics been debunked enough already? Spending for the sake of spending doesn't improve the economy.I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett KavanaughComment
-
Removes money from the economy? What are you talking about? Cutting spending should mean that less revenue is collected (or is spent on the deficit/having the debt paid down, also beneficial to the economy) and that money would still be in the pockets of consumers and investors.Originally posted by Kidicious
Cutting spending removes money from the economy the same way that taxing does. You shouldn't need to be a certain kind of thinker to understand that.-rmsharpeComment
Comment