RE: They're both nuts.

RE: They're both nuts. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

willbeurdaddy -> RE: They're both nuts. (12/8/2010 10:40:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Use any unpaid for number you like. Makes no difference--same point. How much is the cost of extending the tax cuts for those below $250,000? Hint: a helluva lot more than $700 billion.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: They're both nuts. (12/8/2010 10:47:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse When businesses, big or small make money, that is a good thing. Paying less in taxes will help all businesses. A poor person has never hired anyone. That 2% of FICA is the only part of it that affects businesses. The rest concerns individual taxes, which has no bearing on business decisions. And while on the subject, taxes have virtually no effect on the spending decisions of the wealthy as studies on the matter show. Only for the lower echelon of the upper middle class on down do taxes affect personal consumption, the lower the income level the greater the effect. The extension of the tax cuts affect individual, not business taxes. I think that the 2% FICA cut will cut Social Security at a later date. Not exactly sure how the compile it because it is a complex formula. But I know that it is dependent upon how much you pay in. The 2% reduction represents less than .001 percent of the present value of projected trust fund revenues. It is meaningless in the long term and will be at least partially offset by the stimulus effect on the economy.

tazzygirl -> RE: They're both nuts. (12/8/2010 11:16:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse Have you seen the latest unemployment figures ? 9.8% last month and climbing. The trillion dollar stimulus apparently isn't working. Trillion dollar? You do love to round up, and sharply. The actual figure is closer to 787 billion, of which much of what was lent to banks and businesses have been repaid. But, of course, you would know that already.

Musicmystery -> RE: They're both nuts. (12/8/2010 11:25:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Use any unpaid for number you like. Makes no difference--same point. How much is the cost of extending the tax cuts for those below $250,000? Hint: a helluva lot more than $700 billion. Begs the question. The point remains the same--plug in any number you prefer.

Musicmystery -> RE: They're both nuts. (12/8/2010 11:31:08 AM)
quote: someone who should fucking well know better OK, O Oracle, enlighten me.... What part of a one year 2% reduction in FICA is not a tax cut?

willbeurdaddy -> RE: They're both nuts. (12/8/2010 11:33:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Use any unpaid for number you like. Makes no difference--same point. How much is the cost of extending the tax cuts for those below $250,000? Hint: a helluva lot more than $700 billion. Begs the question. The point remains the same--plug in any number you prefer. It doesnt beg anything. It is precisely on point. You argue that the GOP holding out for the $700 billion (a static and overstated number to start with) is inconsistent with arguments for deficit reduction. The nearly $3 trillion that the lower income extensions would cost (and have half as much as much stimulus effect) would go a helluva lot further toward deficit reduction, but I dont hear you or any other liberals arguing for them to expire. (BTW those are permanent extension numbers not two year numbers).

mnottertail -> RE: They're both nuts. (12/8/2010 11:38:57 AM)
Thats just fucking stoooooooooooooooooooooooooooopid. So where is the deficit reduction coming from? Out your ass? It adds to the deficit, and only adds to it. Since those reductions have been in place for lo the last.........by your accounts our government should be in a surplus.

subrob1967 -> RE: They're both nuts. (12/8/2010 11:42:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 Once again you guys keep repeating the fallicy that the government has a right to the "$700 billion". They don't. Once again you repeat the fallacy that money is magic. Whether a tax increase or a cut in revenue, with nothing to offset them, it's additional debt for which you are on the hook and which exacerbates the structural deficit. This proposal does both--the worst of both worlds. Yeah, I've never said cut spending by 25% across the board[8\|] You're right I think money is magic, and the treasury can print as much as they want... I'll make it clear for you, in big bold letters even you can understand... STOP FUCKING SPENDING. Shall I put it to music for you, so you can understand the concept?

PyrotheClown -> RE: They're both nuts. (12/8/2010 12:25:27 PM)
Social Security, the Military, Infrastructure,Schools, Law Enforcement,Fire Fighters, These things will always cost money(you ever try to pay someone to risk their life for peanuts..didn't think so) Just saying stupid shit like"stop spending" doesn't help find a solution to our problems, of course there is wasteful spending, but an" across the board" attitude doesn't solve anything. There's whole departments that could be dissolved as of now(I'm talking of the Department of homeland security for instance, instead of updating the fbi's ability to share information amongst its ranks, bush decided that we needed a whole new branch of law enforcement bureaucracy), there's cuts that can be drastically made to things like military spending(fun fact, the us spends more on it's military then the whole rest of the world,I don't advocate the cuts of servicemen pay, I just wanna see them stop buying exotic weapon systems that are obsolete in today's world). If you're angry about welfare spending, then you should advocate the enforcement of existing laws(welfare fraud is rampant) instead of adding more draconian rules to who can get welfare... and for the love of god, stop trying to send idiots to Washington, (mccain graduated at the very bottom of his class at westpoint)

mnottertail -> RE: They're both nuts. (12/8/2010 12:29:01 PM)
and pretty much went downhill from there although he did marry some ketchup money.

pahunkboy -> RE: They're both nuts. (12/8/2010 1:47:35 PM)
the good news is the SS wont get the $250. HA! Now we are saving da money! HA

Musicmystery -> RE: They're both nuts. (12/8/2010 3:00:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Use any unpaid for number you like. Makes no difference--same point. How much is the cost of extending the tax cuts for those below $250,000? Hint: a helluva lot more than $700 billion. Begs the question. The point remains the same--plug in any number you prefer. It doesnt beg anything. It is precisely on point. You argue that the GOP holding out for the $700 billion (a static and overstated number to start with) is inconsistent with arguments for deficit reduction. The nearly $3 trillion that the lower income extensions would cost (and have half as much as much stimulus effect) would go a helluva lot further toward deficit reduction, but I dont hear you or any other liberals arguing for them to expire. (BTW those are permanent extension numbers not two year numbers). No. You are assuming positions I don't hold. The unpaid Bush tax cuts were always a bad idea. ALL of them. Extending them, still unpaid for, is also a bad idea. Adding additional spending and further tax cuts, also unpaid for, is a further bad idea. The total, based on whatever model you choose, is irrelevant. It's a crap load of unfunded structural deficit. Spreading the money around different groups doesn't change that--just whose vote you're trying to buy.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: They're both nuts. (12/8/2010 3:03:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Adding additional spending and further tax cuts, also unpaid for, is a further bad idea. Well, at least we agree on something. (Except for capital gains tax cuts)

mnottertail -> RE: They're both nuts. (12/8/2010 3:07:46 PM)
I would like to see us simultaneously tax the living fuck outta capital gains if we do the other two. At least there will be an offset. Studies show that when you tax capital gains (as opposed to the other laffer asswipe) that guess what? People don't make capital gains. So, that would shake some of that moldy fucking cash out of corporate, eh?

DomKen -> RE: They're both nuts. (12/8/2010 3:19:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail I would like to see us simultaneously tax the living fuck outta capital gains if we do the other two. At least there will be an offset. Studies show that when you tax capital gains (as opposed to the other laffer asswipe) that guess what? People don't make capital gains. So, that would shake some of that moldy fucking cash out of corporate, eh? The most interesting proposal about cap gains that I've seen is to do away with the cap gains tax entirely but to change the definition of taxable income to include what is now cap gains.

Musicmystery -> RE: They're both nuts. (12/8/2010 3:20:46 PM)
quote: Well, at least we agree on something. (Except for capital gains tax cuts) Two things, it seems.

Musicmystery -> RE: They're both nuts. (12/8/2010 3:56:51 PM)
quote: I'll make it clear for you, in big bold letters even you can understand... STOP FUCKING SPENDING. Shall I put it to music for you, so you can understand the concept? What the fuck is YOUR problem? Did you read the OP? The one where I oppose this? The one where reducing revenue and adding spending is a bad idea? Join Rich in the corner.

pahunkboy -> RE: They're both nuts. (12/8/2010 5:33:25 PM)
Funny shtt. People mad that taxes are not high enough. HA

TheHeretic -> RE: They're both nuts. (12/8/2010 7:38:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery OK, O Oracle, enlighten me.... What part of a one year 2% reduction in FICA is not a tax cut? Oh, so THOSE were what you meant. I see. So how do you figure that is going to cost $700 billion? Does Social Security bring in $35 trillion a year? Your attempt to distract tells me you heard what I was saying. You're welcome.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: They're both nuts. (12/8/2010 7:47:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail I would like to see us simultaneously tax the living fuck outta capital gains if we do the other two. At least there will be an offset. Studies show that when you tax capital gains (as opposed to the other laffer asswipe) that guess what? People don't make capital gains. So, that would shake some of that moldy fucking cash out of corporate, eh? The most interesting proposal about cap gains that I've seen is to do away with the cap gains tax entirely but to change the definition of taxable income to include what is now cap gains. Yeah thats real interesting. If youre interested in losing a few more million jobs.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125