- This topic has 9 voices and 378 replies.
-
Posts
-
Why? Because it's class warfare and textbook Marxism. The rich are the ones who give us jobs, so it would be beneficial to the economy of ALL if they were given tax breaks.
What do you think of this list of military advisors for Romney? HEREI don't see any COIN
idiotsexperts or other appeasers on the list.Why? Because it's class warfare and textbook Marxism. The rich are the ones who give us jobs, so it would be beneficial to the economy of ALL if they were given tax breaks.
There is the same kind of debate about taxing the rich and the rich creating jobs in Europe. Who's right, who's wrong ? A matter of society.here's a point from Business Insider : http://www.businessinsider.com/mitt-romney-economic-plan-jobs-2012-8
That article from Business Insider by Henry Blodget seems to present a compelling case with what I would call is a “selective” set of facts. There are too many to address, but I will comment on this, where Blodget argues against the creation of jobs by the “rich”:
What creates the jobs, Hanauer astutely observes, is a healthy economic ecosystem surrounding the company, which starts with the company's customers.
How in the world do these people think a "healthy economic ecosystem" is created? Out of thin air? One of the presumptions of a healthy economic ecosystem is consumer confidence; that is, the confidence that putting money into the ecosystem will bear fruit, that it won't be significantly consumed by taxation and/or complying with excessive regulation. Yet, the entire line that is being sold by the left is that taxation needs to be higher on certain groups and that we need more regulation. If people with cash on hand (call them the "rich", or just call them ordinary people looking for investment opportunities) do not feel that their dollars will go far in the United States in terms of investment return, they will look elsewhere. Not taxing the poor doesn't provide this type of "healthy economic ecosystem", and the proof is what we're seeing right now; somewhere around half of Americans don't pay any income tax, I imagine that government spending on entitlements is at or near all-time highs, and yet our economy is still struggling to go along. I don't think that the rich alone are responsible for creating jobs (this seems to be a strawman floated by Blodget) but I do think that they play a strong part. Blodget says "And until we return to more reasonable tax policies that help the 99% instead of just the 1%, our economy is going to go nowhere." Really? If the rich already pay a disproportionately high amount of taxes, how is it "unreasonable"?
I don't think that the rich alone are responsible for creating jobs
I'm purposely taking this out of context (leaving out your last phrase). Maybe we should define rich first, but tell me how many people making under 200k hire others. If 'rich' means anyone making over 200k then yes they alone create jobs.I have yet to still see a rebuttal to this: if you tax the rich job creators, how in the world could anyone not think that they will raise prices for the consumers to make up the difference? Taxing the "evil" rich oil executives would only force them to raise prices to keep their same low (3%) profit margin, and that's not even considering the hit to just about everyone's 401k. That's an awful lot of people affected. What Marxists and Socialists don't get is it's not a revenue problem, it's a spending problem. Paul Ryan hammers this fact very often.
I think there are two essential problems with the thinking of people on the left in regard to taxes – 1) the principle of taxation and 2) the economic effects of taxation. In regard to the principle, the left says that the rich have to pay their "fair share". Whatever "fair share" is essentially boils down to subjective notions of "fairness", and as we all know what is fair to one person is not fair to another. The "fair share" argument can also be grounded in envy; those on the bottom sometimes seem angry at the rich because they have what others don't. I don't think that these kinds of emotional issues ought to play a part in a rational discussion on taxation. The purpose of taxation should be to raise revenue to pay for services that benefit all, rather than a means to punish one group because of their state in life.In regard to the practical effects of taxation, I think people on the left feel that if only taxes on the rich were to increase by (for example) 10%, the poor would be better off and the economy would continue on hunky dorey, even better than before. The problem is that 1) the poor will never see that 10% after it goes through the grabbing hands in government, 2) the rich will have less capital to invest, and 3) it will make the country a less attractive place to invest for others outside the country.
I would add to you views on Taxation Phid but you have echoed my sentiments almost exactly. I always ask people that talk about the need to raise taxes what benefit the receive from their present level of taxation. I am told about roads, police, fire protection, consumer advocacy, and defense; but never is welfare or state entitlements mentioned. When I then ask them if the state paying the mob to be quiet through these programs is also desirable they generally lose it. These people need help they say and it is only right that we help them. I then ask how indefinite payments help them instead of just making them dependent? I have yet to hear a good answer to that. If I really want to set them off I give them the old line about giving someone a fish versus teaching him to fish.Te problem is not that the left or tax advocates don't have humanity, it is that what humanity they have is so colored by condescension for everybody else in society that they cannot conceive of doing things any differently. The discussion of taxation is not about fairness, it is about taking what others have. Further, such taking is not to help anybody but simply because the left has decided that being rich is bad and they have figured out that they can use government to enforce their desires The left does not see government as a way to enforce rules applicable to everybody, they see government as a bludgeon to enforce their worldview. The modern left is using the methods of democracy to enforce a true dictatorship of the proletariat and denying it every step of the way.If you really think about it the modern Left/Liberals are a greater threat to Western society and the world as a whole than communism ever was. The left would rather see civilization collapse then concede that they may be wrong in their thinking and ideology or that it might require adjustment.
Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach him how to fish and he will … (sit in a boat and drink beer all day.) 😉I wonder who'd disagree with that quote but how to apply that ?(Does it mean that you understand the motivations of the wetbacks fish-crossing the Rio Grande ?)
I think that Romney is actually pretty well positioned going into this final debate tonight. He came out and thoroughly beat Obama in debate #1. In the second debate, they more or less tied, although Obama obviously increased much more in his performance (he was starting from lower). He was therefore better than Romney on a relative scale.In debate #3, Obama will not have the advantage of going "nowhere but up". If Romney can beat Obama once again, he will sway the tide of support in his favor leading into the final two weeks of the campaign.
The Presidential Debate Drinking Game. Play along, I did! The most fun you can have in politics
With Obama's horses and bayonets comment he just lost the Navy now. If I was in the Navy, I'd be offended by that comment. Apparently Obama thinks naval power is old-fashioned.
It was a “zinger”-type comment, but one which I heard some people say was uncalled for and unpresidential. I suppose this is the case anytime you start treating a presidential debate as a smack-down session (“we have these things called submarines which go under water….”). I realized that it must be hard for any non-president to challenge a sitting president on foreign policy, since presidents are the experts by default in that area. I thought Romney did a pretty good job and held his own.
Why would you expect Obama to have any clue about the military or what it can and cannot do, he spent his entire life wrapped in the arms of modern liberalism. Even his SecDef has no military experience. Oh yeah, every soldier and marine has a bayonet for their rifle, even now.Below is why I think Chris Christie will one day be president. The man knows how to tell it like it is.[html]<param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Yxi-ZfD8uhM?version=3&hl=en_US"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Yxi-ZfD8uhM?version=3&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="420" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true">[/html]
No matter what you guys think of Obama, I think the man is a good person. Yes he is a socialist and his views are not good for the country, but he is likable or at least to me he is. Bill Clinton was said to be likable, but I could not stand that creep. Obama has never said anything or done anything that has really turned me off like Clinton did. Romney is a pretty stale guy to me. I think I can like him too, but he just seems more distant and above the average Joe. Is it possible to like somebody that is destroying the country? I don't think Obama is this sinister conspirator out to destroy America, I think he literally believes his social views are what this nation needs….that is sad in of itself. Maybe I just pity him because he seems like a nice guy who could have been a good president if he left his ideology back in Chicagoland.
- The topic ‘Election 2012 – The discussion’ is closed to new replies.
