BF2S Forums DAST Chat

Jay wrote:

eleven bravo wrote:

anything that drops the tax rate for the extremely rich while shifting the cost on to the lower classes is not necessary.

Shifting the cost onto the lower classes? The lower classes don't pay any taxes at all. Why should the rich pay the bills of the poor? Ridiculous.

yeah.  trickle down works right?  youll be there some day jay, right?

It's also funny the hypocrisy of some of supporters of Ryan's bill. They are against raising taxes on the wealthy like in Obama's tax plan but then turn around and claim the wealthy are not being given a payday with Ryan's plan since when the reductions in the tax code are eliminated the wealthy will pay more in taxes.

Come on, you can't have it both ways.

Macbeth wrote:

some popular for lower tax bracketers like the mortgage tax credit get eliminated.

that only applies when you're paying interest. i have no write-offs, i'm going to adopt a fucking goldfish this year, and claim him as a 'dependent'.

online tax cheating
online tax evasion

I know economics isn't your game and all but the whole deficit and national debt thing is just a giant numbers game really. The last budget had a a few things that weren't put into the last ones. They also had the massive tax cuts thrown into it. Sure even then we would still have a deficit but deficits really don't matter if your GDP growth outpaces your debt accumulation. Our 13 trillion debt is alarming to an average person but compared to our GDP, it's manageable. Hell the place wit the highest debt to GDP ratio in the world, Japan, doesn't even have a "debt problem" since 99% of their national debt is held by Japanese banks and investors. They could keep that train going forever really.

So yeah a big numbers game.

Last edited by Macbeth (2011-05-17 09:14:39)

Macbeth wrote:

I know economics isn't your game and all but the whole deficit and national debt thing is just a giant numbers game really. The last budget had a a few things that weren't put into the last ones. They also had the massive tax cuts thrown into it. Sure even then we would still have a deficit but deficits really don't matter if your GDP growth outpaces your debt accumulation. Our 13 trillion debt is alarming to an average person but compared to our GDP, it's manageable. Hell the place wit the highest debt to GDP ratio in the world, Japan, doesn't even have a "debt problem" since 99% of their national debt is held by Japanese banks and investors. They could keep that train going forever really.

So yeah a big numbers game.

erm....we are in debt

eleven bravo wrote:

Jay wrote:

eleven bravo wrote:

yeah.  trickle down works right?  youll be there some day jay, right?

What else do you think creates jobs? The government? Lol.

All subsidies do is make more people poor. I thought you knew this.

when has trickle down ever worked, historically speaking?

Every day.

eleven bravo wrote:

let me rephrase.  when have massive tax cuts to the extremely rich resulted in employment and prosperity for all?

well the stimulus/tarp didnt do much either

i know but that didnt create jobs either...no more than tax cuts at least

a lot of people argue that it wasnt enough of a stimulus.  we havent been in recession in like a year

well if you ask me we need to drop the tax rate on businesses so companies stop setting up mail boxes in ireland as their headquarters to avoid paying taxes here.

i dunno.  i bet a lot of companies would stop if we dropped the tax rate a little and somehow closed the loopholes

maybe.  but it seems to me we drove them to those mailboxes because of the rate in the first place.

eleven bravo wrote:

if you drop the tax rate theyll end up putting more money through those irish mailboxes.  the idea that trickle down is the "rising tide" is about as sound as communism with "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need "

Umm... what do you think rich people would do if you cut their tax rate? Hoard it as gold in a vault like Uncle Scrooge? That money gets invested. It doesn't matter if it sits in a savings account or ends up in a hedge fund, the money moves and creates more wealth. If it sits in a savings account it gets loaned out by banks to businesses and people. If it goes into a hedge fund it's used to purchase stock and commodities which allows other people to invest in turn.

C + G + I = Y, right? That's what we all learned in macroeconomics class. Well, what do you think the "I" part is?

The difference between the money moving around organically versus being filtered by the government is the fact that with private investment, the money ends up where it's profitable, where it's needed. With government spending, the money ends up wherever it's politically acceptable to spend it. The former is efficient, the latter is not.

So the whole 'Well what is the rich man gonna do, buy another fifty masseratti's?' argument falls flat on it's face. It's superficial, and wrong, just like every other facet of lefty economics.