"Fair Share"?

#101
#101
rjd970 said:
I dont' think that is any more right than saying a cigarette tax discriminates against smokers.
Click to expand...

A cigarette tax does discriminate against smokers. Taxing one product because it is unfashionable, or because people are addicted to it and will still buy regardless is wrong.

As for income taxes, taxing one group more than another group is not treating everyone the same. Treating everyone the same is supposed to be what the government does. Taxing one group at a higher rate simply because they belong to a group is wrong.

Here is a thought for you. Obama wants a 'sugar tax' on high sugar foods because he says it will discourage consumption. Yet, at the same time, he says taxing productivity will not discourage it. Which one is he lying about? You can't have it both ways. Either taxation discourages behavior or it does not. Pick one.
 
#102
#102
sjt18 said:
I thought that about LG but then someone indicated that "Law" related to something else.

If gibbs in fact owns a business not related to wine sipping or tofu then my suspicions are right... he's playing games here to get a rise out of people and to argue the ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Closer than you know, sjt.

But I'm not "arguing the ridiculous," sjt. I'm just relating to the real world outside the back door to the good folks here. It's not entirely their fault. The mythology and the obfuscation one has to wade through to see behind the veil can perplex anyone.
 
#103
#103
utgibbs said:
Closer than you know, sjt.

But I'm not "arguing the ridiculous," sjt. I'm just relating to the real world outside the back door to the good folks here. It's not entirely their fault. The mythology and the obfuscation one has to wade through to see behind the veil can perplex anyone.
Click to expand...

poor mans lg............
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#105
#105
There is no "fair share". Bashing the rich is just a kindergarten mentality that Democrats use to get all the poor people "emotional" because they aren't educated and don't know any better. People who like to bash the rich should keep in mind that eventually they will run out of rich people to tax. Pretty soon anyone making $40,000 and up will be considered "rich".

Obama is trying to make 2 classes of people. Class #1 = politicians, uber-rich billionaires, and union bosses

Class #2 = everyone else that pays the taxes.

We are all going to be serfs supporting this bloated bureaucracy.
 
#109
#109
utgibbs said:
Closer than you know, sjt.

But I'm not "arguing the ridiculous," sjt. I'm just relating to the real world outside the back door to the good folks here. It's not entirely their fault. The mythology and the obfuscation one has to wade through to see behind the veil can perplex anyone.
Click to expand...

Case in point. NO ONE who has to deal with the realities of the "real world" believes that the stuff gibbs argues for will work.

The founders talked of "natural law". Even the supposed enlightened ones that gibbs references believed in natural law. Virtually everything he supports with regard to economics violates the concept of natural law.
 
#110
#110
RespectTradition said:
Here is a thought for you. Obama wants a 'sugar tax' on high sugar foods because he says it will discourage consumption. Yet, at the same time, he says taxing productivity will not discourage it. Which one is he lying about? You can't have it both ways. Either taxation discourages behavior or it does not. Pick one.
Click to expand...

This is the same fallacy I have been exposing for some time.

Profits. Wages. There is a big, big difference, and not just in the relative amounts....

Taxes never discourage a good investment; taxes on wages will affect consumption patterns.
 
#111
#111
utgibbs said:
Taxes never discourage a good investment; taxes on wages will affect consumption patterns.
Click to expand...

Please, please tell me that your 2nd grade teacher did a better job of teaching you addition and subtraction than this.

Taxes are a cost. If costs go up.... then it most definitely effects whether an investment is good or not. Therefore if taxes go up....

This is very, very, very simple math and logic.
 
#112
#112
You know, we have gone all over the map in this thread, but the reality is pretty simple.

Every quintile basically gets back what they put in. If there really is a debt problem (debatable - the problem is with the superstructure of Capitalism itself) then this is where it should be addressed.
 
#113
#113
sjt18 said:
Please, please tell me that your 2nd grade teacher did a better job of teaching you addition and subtraction than this.

Taxes are a cost. If costs go up.... then it most definitely effects whether an investment is good or not. Therefore if taxes go up....

This is very, very, very simple math and logic.
Click to expand...

Warren Buffett, and the second grade math teacher, disagree with you.

Taxes are not costs. Why o' why are we still in Econ 001 (yes, 001) on this board?
 
#114
#114
utgibbs said:
Warren Buffett, and the second grade math teacher, disagree with you.

Taxes are not costs. Why o' why are we still in Econ 001 (yes, 001) on this board?
Click to expand...

Warren Buffet is as big a hypocrite as you are.
 
#115
#115
utgibbs said:
Warren Buffett, and the second grade math teacher, disagree with you.

Taxes are not costs. Why o' why are we still in Econ 001 (yes, 001) on this board?
Click to expand...

Oh... I guess that's why they appear as a line on my ledger every month, right?

You are playing aren't you? Just be honest. I mean it is really time you gave it up... NO ONE can be as delusional as you pretend to be in the quote above.
 
#116
#116
gibbs, assuming (and I don't) that you are sincere, have you asked why Buffett has cash reserves right now? I mean if there's no reason to hold cash out of the market then he should be pouring all his in right now including everything he can borrow... right?

I have no idea what it is... but the guy is working an agenda.
 
#117
#117
utgibbs said:
Warren Buffett, and the second grade math teacher, disagree with you.

Taxes are not costs. Why o' why are we still in Econ 001 (yes, 001) on this board?
Click to expand...

There's where it went wrong for Gibbs...he had a 2nd grade teacher that convinced him something that subtracts (you would've had more, but now you don't) from his bottom line isn't a cost.
 
#118
#118
WB is still fighting the IRS over his 2006 return and has not paid them a dime in 5 years.(maybe that is why he does not consider taxes a "cost".)
WB makes me a fortune through BH, but he is only out for WB.
 
#119
#119
It will be interesting to see if Warrn Buffet releases his
tax forms as many are now demanding.

Wonder what the odds are on that??

gorrell.jpg


Jan-Schakowsky_pea-brain.jpg


schakowsky.jpg


rangel.jpg
 
#120
#120
hndog609 said:
There's where it went wrong for Gibbs...he had a 2nd grade teacher that convinced him something that subtracts (you would've had more, but now you don't) from his bottom line isn't a cost.
Click to expand...

The more I think about it... the more I think I'd like to do business with gibbs. If I called my invoice a tax bill... he wouldn't care how much I charged him since it isn't a cost.
 
#121
#121
utgibbs said:
This is the same fallacy I have been exposing for some time.

Profits. Wages. There is a big, big difference, and not just in the relative amounts....

Taxes never discourage a good investment; taxes on wages will affect consumption patterns.
Click to expand...

Profits is a term that denotes what a business (or more) makes for service/product.

Wage is a term that denotes what a person makes for service/product.

If a=b and b=c then a=c.

Ergo after-tax Wage is a term that denotes the profit an individual makes for a service/product.

So effectively, Profit is to business what wage is to individual.

There is no big, big difference.
 
#122
#122
I actually disagree with you on this RT.

A wage is an equal exchange of one resource for another resource based on an agreed price. There is no profit.

Over the course of the 20th century, the idea was accepted that wages are "income"... but they really aren't. They are an exchange.

Profit/income is the amount gained above the actual costs of a product/service.
 
#123
#123
I understand your point. But if I sell you a product for $10 dollars or I sell you my labor for $10 dollars, what is the real difference?

When I sell you a car (resource) for money (another resource) based on an agreed price, how is that different from selling you labor?

The laborer gets more than his labor is worth, else he would keep his labor for himself just like the person who sells a car for profit. The amount he is paid above what his labor is worth to himself is his profit. Isn't it?
 
Last edited:
#124
#124
utgibbs said:
Warren Buffett, and the second grade math teacher, disagree with you.

Taxes are not costs. Why o' why are we still in Econ 001 (yes, 001) on this board?
Click to expand...

You can play word games all you want. The check I send the IRS every quarter takes money out of my account no different than my insurance, equip. rental, and payroll checks do.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top