Originally posted by FriendGregory: I would continue to invest even if taxes reach 99% ... It is about the profit, what is left after expenses.
It is about profit, what is left after expenses. Taxes are an expense. Would you invest there, or somewhere else which had half the tax liability ? There is no question businesses, and people are fleeing California. There is no question people (not just Californians) are coming to Texas and other states which have less tax liabilities.
IP: Logged
04:59 AM
cliffw Member
Posts: 37880 From: Bandera, Texas, USA Registered: Jun 2003
Originally posted by jaskispyder: "The nine-year-old Iraq war came to an official end on Thursday, but paying for it will continue for decades until U.S. taxpayers have shelled out an estimated $4 trillion."
From your linky ...
quote
“The direct costs for the war were about $800 billion, but the indirect costs, the costs you can’t easily see, that payoff will outlast you and me,” said Lawrence Korb, a senior fellow at American Progress, a Washington, D.C. think tank, and a former assistant secretary of defense under Ronald Reagan.
Those costs include interest payments on the billions borrowed to fund the war; the cost of maintaining military bases in Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain to defend Iraq or reoccupy the country if the Baghdad government unravels; and the expense of using private security contractors to protect U.S. property in the country and to train Iraqi forces.
Caring for veterans, more than 2 million of them, could alone reach $1 trillion, according to Paul Rieckhoff, executive director of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, in Congressional testimony in July.
Do we want to factor in all the unseen indirect costs of Nobama's spending, to be fair ? The costs of maintaining bases ? In Nobamanese, that cost would be called an investment. We have bases all over the world and they are invaluable in helping us keep a world presence. They are also needed, ... in case. Protect what US property in Iraq ? We are a world leader. In our absence, someone else would fill the void. Who would you have do it in the Middle East ? We have a duty to lead. We have produced the best society in the world and the world would be a better place, in all aspects, if we can enlighten the world to our model.
quote
your linky Altogether, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost the U.S. between $4 trillion and $6 trillion, more than half of which would be due to the fighting in Iraq, said Neta Crawford, a political science professor at Brown University.
So, are you bitchin about a two trillion dollar tab for the Iraq war, or a four trillion tab for a dual war ? I don't get the relevance of your post. It is apple seeds to apples to what I posted in reply to Pyrthian. He has a long history of opposing military spending. Many like to bash Bush for the Iraq war, even though a great majority of Dumbocratic legislators voted for it.
quote
Originally posted by Pyrthian: the dumbest move made by any nation ever - is drop taxes and go to war at the same time.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: I'm all for positive thinking, but how exactely is the economy recovering? Holiday sales numbers and an improvement in consumer confidence does not mean the economy is improving. Unemployment is VERY high... it's higher right now than when Obama became president in the first place.
Unfortunately, I have a far less optimistic view... look for tons of lay-offs as companies attempt to reconcile the new requirements, taxes, and other regulations that will take effect with Obamacare both this year, but more importantly, in 2014. No offense Newf, but you have no idea what you're talking about, and quite honestly, I don't expect you to since you don't live here. But if you want to look at the reality without bias, just take a look at all the new taxes and regulations that will hit businesses in 2014. Expect to see a huge conversion from full-time to part-time employees...
It's in the best interest of everyone for the economy to improve, the new taxes and regulations are to try and quell what many here are screaming about....too much debt/deficit etc..
Just because some hate this President and or administration doesn't mean that they are wrong in everything they do no matter what Fox News and Rush might say, doesn't automatically mean that they are right either. Of course I wouldn't have any idea as I live in a country with no taxes, no unemployment and privatized healthcare....
We'll see how things transpire and see if socialized medicine (welcome to the 20th century BTW) is the ruination of the U.S.
IP: Logged
06:34 AM
cliffw Member
Posts: 37880 From: Bandera, Texas, USA Registered: Jun 2003
Originally posted by newf: It's in the best interest of everyone for the economy to improve, the new taxes and regulations are to try and quell what many here are screaming about....too much debt/deficit etc..
We have a spending problem. Giving Washington more money is like giving a crack head more crack. Our gooberment claims a savings by increasing spending less than they did last year. The math is true. Get rid of the Bush tax cuts and we can fund the gooberment for eight days which does nothing for the debt and next to nothing for the deficit.
IP: Logged
06:44 AM
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
It will not be. It will be kinda' like when Rome "fell". I mean, it's still there.......
Despite all the lamentations, it's mearly progress. Good or bad, that's all it is.
Correct. Rome is still there - but the Empire is not. (neither is the Roman Republic) Moscow is still there, but the Soviet Union is long gone. Germany has been there through a Republic, the Third Reich, split in two after WWII and finally reunified as a member of the European Union. Still called "Germany" but bears little resemblence to it's previous governments.
Whatever the future brings, I don't think many would argue the continent of North America will still be here and some form of nation will be where the current United States is. Whether it is still called the United States of America or bears any resemblence to the historical idea of the US is the question.
The USA has always been an idea, not a patch of land. This is just where the idea took hold and grew. When this land can no longer sustain that idea, the land may remain but the idea of what the US is will be gone to another place where those ideals can flourish, or be lost to history.
Rest assured, the dirt under your feet will always be here for you.
IP: Logged
09:02 AM
masospaghetti Member
Posts: 2477 From: Charlotte, NC USA Registered: Dec 2009
Why does that matter? Once we went into war, it would have been wise to raise taxes to pay for them. The idea here is that you can't have expensive wars and low taxes at the same time.
IP: Logged
09:04 AM
jaskispyder Member
Posts: 21510 From: Northern MI Registered: Jun 2002
All the rich I know personally are all cutting back on investments and employees. One family member is a multi millionaire and hes cutting back his business and spending his money on more toys. Since the election hes bought a new top line F 150, a Mercedes C-100, a Bentley Continental GT V8, and a Callaway Corvette convertible. Also just got a lake house with 8 car underground garage. He needed a place to keep all the jet skis, 400 hp pontoon boat, and a tri engine Checkmate. I dont know how much bikes run, but he also bought 2 brand new full custom Harleys and he dont even have a motorcycle license. His company sold off one of its divisions, laying off a lot of employees. Thats what he thinks of Obama policies, even though he does think the car manufacturer buy out was good. I had Thanksgiving dinner at his house on the golf course. Hes got 2, 8' screen theater rooms and a putting course downstairs. So I know what locals are doing anyway.
So... this guy has more toys, more luxuries, more of everything and yet laid off a bunch of employees? sounds like a stand up guy.
IP: Logged
09:33 AM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
So... this guy has more toys, more luxuries, more of everything and yet laid off a bunch of employees? sounds like a stand up guy.
So you're of the opinion he shouldn't have sold a division of his company because he has personal possessions you don't have? How many cars or motorcycles is a business owner allowed to have before they can make hiring or firing decisions in their company?
IP: Logged
09:46 AM
jaskispyder Member
Posts: 21510 From: Northern MI Registered: Jun 2002
Originally posted by cliffw: The taxes were dropped in June, before 9/11.
quote
Originally posted by masospaghetti: Why does that matter?
, because Pyrthian said we dropped taxes and went to war at the same time and it is not true.
quote
Originally posted by Pyrthian: ... drop taxes and go to war at the same time.
quote
Originally posted by masospaghetti: Once we went into war, it would have been wise to raise taxes to pay for them. The idea here is that you can't have expensive wars and low taxes at the same time.
First of all, we do not have low taxes. We have the highest tax rates on Earth. Secondly, how would one propose a tax increase on a war which costs can't be known ?
IP: Logged
10:00 AM
PFF
System Bot
cliffw Member
Posts: 37880 From: Bandera, Texas, USA Registered: Jun 2003
First of all, we do not have low taxes. We have the highest tax rates on Earth. Secondly, how would one propose a tax increase on a war which costs can't be known ?
Obviously you can't know the exact amount, but you know it will cost a lot of money. That's like saying you know you'll have a major medical expense in six months, but since you don't know the exact cost, you're not going to save any money at all.
[This message has been edited by masospaghetti (edited 11-29-2012).]
IP: Logged
10:44 AM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27111 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
It is about profit, what is left after expenses. Taxes are an expense. Would you invest there, or somewhere else which had half the tax liability ? There is no question businesses, and people are fleeing California. There is no question people (not just Californians) are coming to Texas and other states which have less tax liabilities.
And California continues to cut it's own financial throat with stupid bullshit like their recent "carbon credits auction", and yet another tax increase on "the rich". How long to these stupid asses think the party will last?
IP: Logged
11:00 AM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27111 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Why does that matter? Once we went into war, it would have been wise to raise taxes to pay for them. The idea here is that you can't have expensive wars and low taxes at the same time.
You can't just raise taxes and get a dollar for dollar increase in revenue. Just because you raise taxes 5%, that does NOT necessarily mean you get 5% more revenue. If you have a wad of money in your pocket, and I take a $20 bill out, yes I am $20 richer, but you have $20 less for something, whether that is investment or just a night out on the town.
IP: Logged
11:05 AM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27111 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
lol - of course none of the problems have been fixed. of course there is little to no improvement
unemployment will remain as is until we enforce US standard on imports. (or some other solution to foriegn labor) the "budget" will remain a problem until the military stops incinerating US Dollars. (or get more revenue for the military to burn thru)
We have a spending problem. Giving Washington more money is like giving a crack head more crack. Our gooberment claims a savings by increasing spending less than they did last year. The math is true. Get rid of the Bush tax cuts and we can fund the gooberment for eight days which does nothing for the debt and next to nothing for the deficit.
Yes cutting spending AND raising taxes is what's needed you can't get there by either alone IMO.
IP: Logged
11:42 AM
cliffw Member
Posts: 37880 From: Bandera, Texas, USA Registered: Jun 2003
Originally posted by masospaghetti: Highest tax rates on Earth? According to what? Heritage foundation puts the United States right in the middle and lower than most industrialized countries.
There are lies, damn lies, and staistics. United States Corporate rates : 0–39% (federal), 0–12% (states). Individual rates : 0–35% (federal), 0–11% (states). Find a higher rate in the world. Your lies statistics are just a percent of GDP. We are not a commodity of gooberment. Who gives a zhat how much money everybody else is making when we fill out our tax returns ?
IP: Logged
11:47 AM
cliffw Member
Posts: 37880 From: Bandera, Texas, USA Registered: Jun 2003
Originally posted by newf: Yes cutting spending AND raising taxes is what's needed you can't get there by either alone IMO.
Yet, cutting spending is not on the table. Only more promises to do it later, which never materialize. I want this spending/debt problem resolved. I am willing to pay higher taxes. I don't mind paying taxes. I have two properties, many work related expenditures, medical expenses, and charitable donations. I don't even take deductions. I want to see everybody pay taxes. Everybody ! So that they will get pissed when they go up, and demand a stop to spending.
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 11-29-2012).]
IP: Logged
11:52 AM
masospaghetti Member
Posts: 2477 From: Charlotte, NC USA Registered: Dec 2009
Originally posted by cliffw: Your lies statistics are just a percent of GDP. We are not a commodity of gooberment. Who gives a zhat how much money everybody else is making when we fill out our tax returns ?
I don't understand what you are trying to say. Our government takes in more tax money than the rest of the world, in absolute dollars? Is that what you find egregious?
The values I gave you are TOTAL average tax load including all state and local taxes. The graph you link to shows the United states nicely in the middle of developed countries and only includes nominal rates, not deductions (which are obviously significant - no large corporation here pays the full 35% rate).
quote
fierobear: You can't just raise taxes and get a dollar for dollar increase in revenue. Just because you raise taxes 5%, that does NOT necessarily mean you get 5% more revenue.
True, you won't get a 100% return on a tax increase, but it WILL increase revenue. The converse is also true - at our current tax rates, lowering taxes have always led to lower revenues. Even Reagan, and even by the time he left office.
Originally posted by masospaghetti: True, you won't get a 100% return on a tax increase, but it WILL increase revenue.
No, not necessarily. There is a curve of "diminishing returns". At some point, raising taxes lowers revenues.
quote
The converse is also true - at our current tax rates, lowering taxes have always led to lower revenues. Even Reagan, and even by the time he left office.
Sorry, that's just wrong. Reagan lowered taxes and revenues went UP.
You seem to be making a lot of wrong assumptions on this. So are the politicians who agree with you.
IP: Logged
12:10 PM
jaskispyder Member
Posts: 21510 From: Northern MI Registered: Jun 2002
Yet, cutting spending is not on the table. Only more promises to do it later, which never materialize. I want this spending/debt problem resolved. I am willing to pay higher taxes. I don't mind paying taxes. I have two properties, many work related expenditures, medical expenses, and charitable donations. I don't even take deductions. I want to see everybody pay taxes. Everybody ! So that they will get pissed when they go up, and demand a stop to spending.
That's not totally unfair, though I think everyone does pay taxes in some form.
IP: Logged
12:15 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
Originally posted by fierobear: Sorry, that's just wrong. Reagan lowered taxes and revenues went UP.
You seem to be making a lot of wrong assumptions on this. So are the politicians who agree with you.
so, let us use them magic rates. they worked. you agree. let us use the Reagan Tax Rates.
or are you claiming that if we dropped taxes every time we need revenue, that would be good? or perhaps a negative tax rate?
kinda like finding just the right shade of Green. blue. yellow. lets take some yellow out. ok, perfect. by removing more yellow, now you lose it again. and keep removing, and it turns blue again. its not the removing - it is the balance.
IP: Logged
12:24 PM
spark1 Member
Posts: 11159 From: Benton County, OR Registered: Dec 2002
Why does that matter? Once we went into war, it would have been wise to raise taxes to pay for them. The idea here is that you can't have expensive wars and low taxes at the same time.
Sure you can, LBJ did it and funded "Great Society" programs at the same time. All you have to do is devalue the currency.
IP: Logged
12:46 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
And there you go again. What I do and say has no impact on what you believe.
I recognize you have no impact on my beliefs. You're not going to change my beliefs. I asked you a straightforward question because I'm curious what you believe. Do you believe a business owner should be allowed to make staffing decisions for their business?
Since you seem to have a problem with someone who "has more toys, more luxuries, more of everything and yet laid off a bunch of employees," I would like to know what level of personal possessions a business owner may have and still retain the moral right to make staffing decisions for their business.
Unless, of course, I missread your comment and you approve of the layoffs. In that case, I apologize for the misunderstanding.
IP: Logged
01:11 PM
jaskispyder Member
Posts: 21510 From: Northern MI Registered: Jun 2002
This was offset partially by effective tax increases through other programs Reagan implemented, but the net sum was still about a 1% reduction in government revenue.
Ever heard of the Laffer curve? "...estimates of revenue-maximizing tax rates have varied widely, with a mid-range of around 70%." Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve
Not exactly the 26% that we are currently at.
IP: Logged
01:52 PM
masospaghetti Member
Posts: 2477 From: Charlotte, NC USA Registered: Dec 2009
so, let us use them magic rates. they worked. you agree. let us use the Reagan Tax Rates.
or are you claiming that if we dropped taxes every time we need revenue, that would be good? or perhaps a negative tax rate?
kinda like finding just the right shade of Green. blue. yellow. lets take some yellow out. ok, perfect. by removing more yellow, now you lose it again. and keep removing, and it turns blue again. its not the removing - it is the balance.
You are right on target...it's a balance.
IP: Logged
01:55 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
It's in the best interest of everyone for the economy to improve, the new taxes and regulations are to try and quell what many here are screaming about....too much debt/deficit etc..
Just because some hate this President and or administration doesn't mean that they are wrong in everything they do no matter what Fox News and Rush might say, doesn't automatically mean that they are right either. Of course I wouldn't have any idea as I live in a country with no taxes, no unemployment and privatized healthcare....
We'll see how things transpire and see if socialized medicine (welcome to the 20th century BTW) is the ruination of the U.S.
Oh, it won't be the ruination... but it will most certainly mean the normalization of the United States. We are the most powerful nation in the world... we could quite possibly destroy half the countries in this world while fending off attacks from all others, at the same time. We are the most technologically sophisticated, and the most economically powerful.
That said... we've been in decline for at least a decade now... and it has become progressively worse over the last few years. Instituting socialized health care, right or wrong... was the WORST thing you could have done in an economy such as this. I mean... what were they thinking?
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Oh, it won't be the ruination... but it will most certainly mean the normalization of the United States. We are the most powerful nation in the world... we could quite possibly destroy half the countries in this world while fending off attacks from all others, at the same time. We are the most technologically sophisticated, and the most economically powerful.
That said... we've been in decline for at least a decade now... and it has become progressively worse over the last few years. Instituting socialized health care, right or wrong... was the WORST thing you could have done in an economy such as this. I mean... what were they thinking?
Hmmmmm maybe they were thinking that it's about time the U.S. healthcare benefited everyone like pretty much every other first world nation.
AND maybe they were thinking that overspending on their military while touting things like "We are the most powerful nation in the world... we could quite possibly destroy half the countries in this world while fending off attacks from all others, at the same time. We are the most technologically sophisticated, and the most economically powerful." is probably what other empires did before their collapse.
IP: Logged
04:08 PM
cliffw Member
Posts: 37880 From: Bandera, Texas, USA Registered: Jun 2003
Originally posted by masospaghetti: I don't understand what you are trying to say. Our government takes in more tax money than the rest of the world, in absolute dollars? Is that what you find egregious?
It ain't the taking in of any amount of absolute dollars. It is the never ending increases in spending and the cry for more taxes that I find egregious. Gooberment has a spending problem. Actually, gooberment is a problem. We have an over redundancy in agencies. All vying for power and a larger budget. All with wasteful spending. Did you find a country with a higher tax rate ? There ain't one. Yeah, we got deductions. Our tax code is a joke in of itself.
, because Pyrthian said we dropped taxes and went to war at the same time and it is not true.
