Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Taxing the Rich


  • Please log in to reply
208 replies to this topic

#121    ninjadude

ninjadude

    Seeker of truths

  • Member
  • 10,989 posts
  • Joined:11 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois

  • "dirt collects at the interfaces"

Posted 13 December 2012 - 01:28 AM

It's an uneven recovery and that's the problem. I don't believe a single measurement relates. The rich and corporations and wall street are making money hand over fist. The middle class is unemployed and struggling. There is a huge income imbalance. This is why Obama won't budge on increasing taxes on the rich and tax cuts for the middle class and won't cut SS and Medicare.  If I were the DOD, I would be polishing my resume.

"Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now!""
- Friedrich Nietzsche

#122    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,431 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 13 December 2012 - 04:37 AM

View PostTiggs, on 12 December 2012 - 08:32 PM, said:

There's only one GDP.
Okay?   And it's either borrowed and printed and made flimsy from the government, or it's reliable and sustainable and not subject to these massive business cycles and bubbles bursting that we're still learning the causality of much too slowly to stop government from doing it again.

questionmark said "A normal country is in (real) recession when the GDP goes negative. Given of the loose treatment of debts (government, private and commercial) in the US anything below 3% is an actual recession...even in a good year".  

If we're getting 3% with zero percent interest rates, it shouldn't be difficult to figure out we're going to get much worse with higher interest rates.   What's not sustainable are zero percent interest rates, so why take a GDP figure under that unsustainable climate seriously when its days are numbered?   Are we only concerned about this quarter and next's, or can we have the long range vision to look down the road and see what's in store there?

"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela

#123    Tiggs

Tiggs

    Relax. It's only me.

  • 9,076 posts
  • Joined:30 Jan 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orange County, California

  • Universe Service Pack 2 still needs patching.

Posted 13 December 2012 - 07:24 AM

View PostYamato, on 13 December 2012 - 04:37 AM, said:


Okay?   And it's either borrowed and printed and made flimsy from the government, or it's reliable and sustainable and not subject to these massive business cycles and bubbles bursting that we're still learning the causality of much too slowly to stop government from doing it again.

questionmark said "A normal country is in (real) recession when the GDP goes negative. Given of the loose treatment of debts (government, private and commercial) in the US anything below 3% is an actual recession...even in a good year".  

The annual increase in GDP averaged 3.4% for the US for around a hundred years, up to 1980.


Quote

If we're getting 3% with zero percent interest rates, it shouldn't be difficult to figure out we're going to get much worse with higher interest rates.   What's not sustainable are zero percent interest rates, so why take a GDP figure under that unsustainable climate seriously when its days are numbered?   Are we only concerned about this quarter and next's, or can we have the long range vision to look down the road and see what's in store there?

If it's unsustainable, then perhaps you can explain why Japan haven't had an interest rate higher than 1% since 1995?

As far as I'm aware - No-one's particularly expecting the US interest rate to be anything other than zero prior to mid-2015 at the earliest.

Regardless of whether you're using monetary policy or fiscal policy to tweak the economy's output - GDP growth is GDP growth.

Or let me put it another way:

If the GDP was still declining - the US would be in a depression and we really would all be stuffed.


"What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?" - Tiggs vs PA - Did Jesus Really exist? - The Formal Debate:
HERE
Posted Image


#124    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,431 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 13 December 2012 - 02:14 PM

View PostTiggs, on 13 December 2012 - 07:24 AM, said:

The annual increase in GDP averaged 3.4% for the US for around a hundred years, up to 1980.




If it's unsustainable, then perhaps you can explain why Japan haven't had an interest rate higher than 1% since 1995?

As far as I'm aware - No-one's particularly expecting the US interest rate to be anything other than zero prior to mid-2015 at the earliest.

Regardless of whether you're using monetary policy or fiscal policy to tweak the economy's output - GDP growth is GDP growth.

Or let me put it another way:

If the GDP was still declining - the US would be in a depression and we really would all be stuffed.
Declining growth isn't a recession.   Negative growth is.  

Japan has suffered through two lost decades in a fiscal trap of economic stagflation, and now we're following in their footsteps.   Unsustainable stagflation is not good enough.   Especially when the reason for it is killing the very essence of private enterprise in this country with a ghoulish blend of government and business in bed together making the markets with force, and with capital it didn't earn domestically but borrowed against with foreign credit.

"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela

#125    Tiggs

Tiggs

    Relax. It's only me.

  • 9,076 posts
  • Joined:30 Jan 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orange County, California

  • Universe Service Pack 2 still needs patching.

Posted 13 December 2012 - 03:05 PM

View PostYamato, on 13 December 2012 - 02:14 PM, said:

Declining growth isn't a recession.   Negative growth is.  

Correct. Declining Growth from an initial negative position, however, will quickly lead to a Depression.


Quote

Japan has suffered through two lost decades in a fiscal trap of economic stagflation, and now we're following in their footsteps.   Unsustainable stagflation is not good enough.

Unsustainable stagflation would be a bad thing. Fortunately, since inflation has yet to even reach the historic average - and since current projections seem to have it at under 2% in the mid-term - I don't think I'll be losing any sleep over it, anytime soon.


"What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?" - Tiggs vs PA - Did Jesus Really exist? - The Formal Debate:
HERE
Posted Image


#126    RavenHawk

RavenHawk

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,978 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 13 December 2012 - 03:54 PM

View Postninjadude, on 11 December 2012 - 08:23 PM, said:

Oh but you pine for the 50's don't you?!! Of course it's fair. Those most able to pay, need to pay more.
No, I pine for the pre 1913s.  A repeal of the 16th Amendment.  Confiscating wealth just to redistribute it is not fair.  Having everyone pay a little is fair.  Do you think that of those at the other end only paying about 2% is fair?  Those “most able to pay” is just an excuse.  Everyone should be able to pay.  Fair would be the more you pay in, the more you get out.  You pay in a little, you get out a little.  That would be fair.

"I don't see one link on this thread providing one shred of evidence for the disgusting jew-hate BS you Zionist liars keep accusing me of." - Yamato
"%&* YOU and your empty suited insults about "racism" you Islamophobic Zionist freak." - Yamato

#127    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 35,282 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 13 December 2012 - 03:57 PM

View PostRavenHawk, on 13 December 2012 - 03:54 PM, said:

No, I pine for the pre 1913s.  A repeal of the 16th Amendment.  Confiscating wealth just to redistribute it is not fair.  Having everyone pay a little is fair.  Do you think that of those at the other end only paying about 2% is fair?  Those "most able to pay" is just an excuse.  Everyone should be able to pay.  Fair would be the more you pay in, the more you get out.  You pay in a little, you get out a little.  That would be fair.

And that is how civilization ceases to work. Unless one is willing to carrybthe others load it ends in tribalism.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#128    RavenHawk

RavenHawk

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,978 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 13 December 2012 - 04:01 PM

View Post-Mr_Fess-, on 11 December 2012 - 08:36 PM, said:

But they do. They pay more than everybody exponentially. When is enough enough? When they are taxed out of their fortune and the poor have enough of their money to be middle class and then everybody is "middle class" and everybody is the same and no one has more than anyone else and everything is fair and equal and liberal fairy dust rains from the sky?
But see, that is the fallacy.  If you give the poor more wealth, they will squander that wealth away and according to Maximum Entropy, if redistribution continues, all will eventually be poor.  That’s just not math but physics too.  It is clearly unsustainable.

"I don't see one link on this thread providing one shred of evidence for the disgusting jew-hate BS you Zionist liars keep accusing me of." - Yamato
"%&* YOU and your empty suited insults about "racism" you Islamophobic Zionist freak." - Yamato

#129    Tiggs

Tiggs

    Relax. It's only me.

  • 9,076 posts
  • Joined:30 Jan 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orange County, California

  • Universe Service Pack 2 still needs patching.

Posted 13 December 2012 - 06:28 PM

View PostRavenHawk, on 13 December 2012 - 04:01 PM, said:

But see, that is the fallacy.  If you give the poor more wealth, they will squander that wealth away and according to Maximum Entropy, if redistribution continues, all will eventually be poor.  That's just not math but physics too.  It is clearly unsustainable.

It's neither Math nor Physics.

Firstly - Maximum Entropy would mean a situation where all money would be distributed entirely evenly. No-one would be either rich or poor, because richness or poorness is a relative measure.

Secondly - the second law of thermodynamics only applies to a closed system. As there are Central banks that can create money - the financial system isn't closed, and thus - entropy doesn't apply here.

Thirdly - this is a chart of the US's historic GINI Coefficient - a mathematical index between 0 and 1, with 0 showing total income equality (which would be maximum entropy) and 1 showing total income inequality (a single person getting all the income). You'll note the current direction that it's heading in:
Posted Image

If you want to see where the US is in relation to everyone else - here's a handy comparison map from The Atlantic.

Posted Image


Next stop, Mexico, with a GINI coefficient of 0.55. Not a country exactly renown for it's burgeoning middle class.


"What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?" - Tiggs vs PA - Did Jesus Really exist? - The Formal Debate:
HERE
Posted Image


#130    RavenHawk

RavenHawk

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,978 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 13 December 2012 - 06:57 PM

View Postninjadude, on 11 December 2012 - 08:52 PM, said:

Yes it does spend more than it recieves. It's called deficit spending. Has been done for, well most of the last century. No, you should not be upset. During a downturn in the economy is the worst time to be "paying it down".
And that is part of the problem – the 16th Amendment.  Deficit spending and fractional banking will eventually be the end of us.  It takes a long time and that is the ruse that the Socialists use with excuses like, “this little ol’ tax raise won’t hurt anyone”.  It may be true but misleading because it doesn’t stop there.  You’ve got to continually throw someone else’s money at the problem and at some point, the money runs out.  Everybody should be furiously upset because the 16th was passed in a similar manner to the way Obamacare was crammed down our throats.  You don’t spend your way out of a downturn.

Quote

10 years. Where did you get that number - I know, pulled it out of someplace. Any number you come up with is arbitrary. And yes the 75B will make a difference. Small but still there it is.
This comment is what announces to the whole world that you do not understand a thing.  The 10 year time frame is the terminology that Washington uses.  It is not an arbitrary number.  How dense are you?  When they talk about a $1.2T tax cut, it is over a 10 year period.  That’s $120B per year.  $1.2T sounds more like they are addressing the issue than $120B does.  

$75B does not make a difference.  To make a real difference, you need to be talking about a number in the $500B range.  Is that clear?  You are refusing to see the issue by bantering around the term “arbitrary”.  Don’t be so ignorant.

Quote

enough?!! They paid NINETY PERCENT 90% in the GLoRIous fifities. They have gotten off with huge breaks since then. The MINOR increase being proposed is nothing. And you're quite wrong in a spectacular way about the poor being middle class.
You really have no idea of what is going on do you?  Now or then.  Simply put, 90% in the fifties meant something different than what 90% would mean today.  Was the economy doing the same thing in the fifties as it is today?  Of course not.  In the fifties, business was making money hand over fist.  Most manufacturing was done here.  The taxes of the fifties was being used to pay down the debt from the war.  Today, our economy is in a recession.  Manufacturing has left our shores because of over taxing.  And the taxes being raised aren’t even going to paying down the debt, but spending on Entitlements, creating more debt.  These are things that you have to take into consideration.  You’ve just been brainwashed to believe that by taxing the evil rich that that will solve all our problems.  Well, it’s time to come back to reality.

"I don't see one link on this thread providing one shred of evidence for the disgusting jew-hate BS you Zionist liars keep accusing me of." - Yamato
"%&* YOU and your empty suited insults about "racism" you Islamophobic Zionist freak." - Yamato

#131    ninjadude

ninjadude

    Seeker of truths

  • Member
  • 10,989 posts
  • Joined:11 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois

  • "dirt collects at the interfaces"

Posted 13 December 2012 - 10:09 PM

View PostRavenHawk, on 13 December 2012 - 03:54 PM, said:

Those "most able to pay" is just an excuse.  Everyone should be able to pay.  Fair would be the more you pay in, the more you get out.  You pay in a little, you get out a little.  That would be fair.

It's obvious that you have never been poor in your short life. And it's also obvious that you fail to understand the basic premises of government.

"Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now!""
- Friedrich Nietzsche

#132    ninjadude

ninjadude

    Seeker of truths

  • Member
  • 10,989 posts
  • Joined:11 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois

  • "dirt collects at the interfaces"

Posted 13 December 2012 - 10:19 PM

View PostRavenHawk, on 13 December 2012 - 06:57 PM, said:

Deficit spending and fractional banking will eventually be the end of us.

but it hasn't

Quote

and at some point, the money runs out.

not when you can print more it doesn't.

Quote

  Everybody should be furiously upset

because of something passed a 100 years ago? yeah right.

Quote

The 10 year time frame is the terminology that Washington uses.

And you act as if it has some deep meaning. It does not. You have a problem with definitions of simple terms like arbitrary and socialism.

Quote

Simply put, 90% in the fifties meant something different than what 90% would mean today.  

so now MATH was different 60 years ago? whew!

Quote

Was the economy doing the same thing in the fifties as it is today?  Of course not.  In the fifties, business was making money hand over fist.

I had to break to your hard head but they are now as well. This is a proven fact.

Quote

Manufacturing has left our shores because of over taxing.

No it left because of business raiders like Bain capital. Just like what happened to Hostess.

Quote

but spending on Entitlements, creating more debt.

What spending would that be?

Quote

   Well, it's time to come back to reality.

The consevabubble and the wacko world you live in are NOT reality.

"Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now!""
- Friedrich Nietzsche

#133    F3SS

F3SS

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,391 posts
  • Joined:11 Jun 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pittsburgh, Pa

Posted 13 December 2012 - 10:20 PM

The basic premise of our government is to ensure opportunities remain available, not to give you stuff, money or a sustainable living but to ensure that you have the opportunity to seek those things, not the ability to.

Posted Image

#134    F3SS

F3SS

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,391 posts
  • Joined:11 Jun 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pittsburgh, Pa

Posted 13 December 2012 - 10:27 PM

So long as money can be printed it'll never run out? I guess technically true but doesn't that diminish it's value? Of course it does. And if the solution is to print more why not just print and print and give and give to us? Because in your world we could all be trillionaires who'd never have to work. But wait. That's liberalism producing the exact opposite of it's intent again. In a world of unlimited money nobody would work or make anything rendering money meaningless and we'd all be villagers on a bartering system. Whatever though. How can you say something like that and think it's righteous?

Posted Image

#135    ninjadude

ninjadude

    Seeker of truths

  • Member
  • 10,989 posts
  • Joined:11 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois

  • "dirt collects at the interfaces"

Posted 13 December 2012 - 11:07 PM

View Post-Mr_Fess-, on 13 December 2012 - 10:27 PM, said:

So long as money can be printed it'll never run out? I guess technically true but doesn't that diminish it's value? Of course it does. And if the solution is to print more why not just print and print and give and give to us?

Because it would be valueless. And of course no one is advocating printing it to that extreme. The world is not black and white.

"Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now!""
- Friedrich Nietzsche




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users