Tweet
If you would like to join the debate, feel free. Or continue cowering on the sideline as a cheerleader for your betters. Whichever suits you ***** 
-
-
Do you have a specific criticism?Originally posted by Asher View PostI came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
Erhm, no. Both 17 an 33 are extremely low taxes.Originally posted by DanS View PostWith or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Steven WeinbergComment
-
I would like to hear your defense for such extremely low taxes.Originally posted by DanS View PostWith or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Steven WeinbergComment
-
BlackCat,
I actually enjoyed both videos. I have to admit that I don't remember talking about Hayek in my college or high school economy classes. The video was also somewhat educational on some right wing views that I had outright dismissed. I would like to point out that as soon as both videos begin you know that the makers are pro hayek just based on the order of rhyming. Even though the video on was against keynes they did present his argument intelligently without trying to make him look too ridiculous. I would argue that we have already learned several times that a hands off approach by the government too the economy will definitely lead to disaster and when the people don't have food too eat they look to the government to solve their problems. I think that spending by the government should be used to plant the seeds for growth. I.E. spending on education and infrastructure will ultimately contribute to entrepreneurship, economic stability and etc. However, when we have pork barrel spending on things that we don't really need for political reasons then we all lose.
Ben,
You miss the concept of a United States. Just because the roads are fine where you are does not mean that the roads are fine. This is the essence of what means at least for me to an American. "We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately." Benjamin Franklin.
This is an example of what happens when we don't stick together and we let money rule.
What can make a nigga wanna fight a whole night club/Figure that he ought to maybe be a pimp simply 'cause he don't like love/What can make a nigga wanna achy, break all rules/In a book when it took a lot to get you hooked up to this volume/
What can make a nigga wanna loose all faith in/Anything that he can't feel through his chest wit sensationComment
-
Yes. And if my income had to go through ten different taxes, each being only 10%, all of those taxes would be extremely low taxes.Originally posted by BlackCat View PostComment
-
Yes. Investors invest in a company. Investors are not a company.Originally posted by DanS View Post"The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "Comment
-
The main criticism I would have of using 33% as a tax rate for Buffet's Berkshire holdings is it's unclear how much of that tax burden will be shouldered by the investors in Berkshire vs the clients of Berkshire vs the salaried employees. Simply assuming if we eliminated that tax rate that it would all go into Buffet's pocket (whether income or capital gains) is clearly not right. Berkshire's competitors would also see reduced costs of doing business. Fees and whatever else they collect to cover those costs would almost surely fall due to competition. Salaries might increase as firms would have more to use to chase after talent.Comment
-
Earnings accrue to the investors in a company and taxing at both stages is indeed double taxation on the earnings stream.Originally posted by Asher View PostI came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
It's a very simple calculation -- no mystery involved. You have earnings before tax and earnings after tax. The earnings after tax accrue to the investor one way or another. Reduce the tax and the earnings after tax will go up.Originally posted by Aeson View PostI came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
As I said, this is a disingenuous comparison because this is the case in every country.Originally posted by DanS View Post
The investment taxes are not high -- period."The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "Comment
-
No. That is taxation of two different incomes. One of the company the other of the share owner. Both are pretty fair.Originally posted by DanS View PostWith or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Steven WeinbergComment
-
That makes me happyBlackCat,
I actually enjoyed both videos. this thread needed some kind of, well, enjoyment. I don't want to comment on the stances of the videos since I think all sides can dig out their specific "wiew".
Locally, we are going to have an election between a right/left (in us terms extreme left/ultimate left
) where the leftist want to spend like crazy while the rightists want to keep the powder dry and only spend if nessecary.
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Steven WeinbergComment
-
This is tedious. Wouldn't you admit that if the taxes went down on the corporate tax, the income of the investor would go up, all else equal?Originally posted by BlackCat View PostI came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
I wasn't making a comparative argument. Who cares about other countries? We are talking about the US and Buffett's comments re the US.Originally posted by Asher View PostI came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
Comment