"Redistribution of Wealth"

veni vidi vici

veni vidi vici

Active Member
Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/2814367
Capitalism does not equal supply side economics. Its a recent phenomenon, and even Alan Greenspan admitted that he was wrong for believing only in the one theory.
Just an observation,but maybe hes wrong again.
 
veni vidi vici

veni vidi vici

Active Member
Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/2814375
Ya know...you guys keep saying the word socialism like we are stupid enough to be swayed by this argument. It isn't the cold war anymore!
What is the main difference between socialism and capitalism? Private property. Has anyone said your house was going to become gov't property??
Also, stdreb, I would like to see some of this data that shows the European economies aren't as good as ours. I'm pretty sure their currency was kicking our butt until recently. And Europe isn't "socialist," but so many like to call it this b/c our economic philosophy has become "supply side or its socialism". Were we socialist between 92-2000? And did it hurt our economy? No.
And another thing, there are lifetime limits on welfare, so the idea that people make a living by collecting your money is absurd. We also have the shortest unemployment insurance program....
Where does Europe run to when there Socialistic policys fail?As a matter of fact who does the world run to when they are in trouble.
 
veni vidi vici

veni vidi vici

Active Member
Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/2814375
And another thing, there are lifetime limits on welfare, so the idea that people make a living by collecting your money is absurd. We also have the shortest unemployment insurance program....
Apparently you have never lived in Illinois.Collection of welfare is a job for some here and its a lifelong job of working the system.
 
sickboy

sickboy

Active Member
Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/2814392
Apparently you have never lived in Illinois.Collection of welfare is a job for some here and its a lifelong job of working the system.
If it is, its state welfare and not federal. That would be a problem for your state to address.
 
aquaknight

aquaknight

Active Member
Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/2814375
Ya know...you guys keep saying the word socialism like we are stupid enough to be swayed by this argument. It isn't the cold war anymore!
What is the main difference between socialism and capitalism? Private property. Has anyone said your house was going to become gov't property??
Here is what I think is a good 'dumb guy' approach to that answer.
Capitalism, the ablility to make as much as you want. Something socialists don't realize as good. When that CEO makes $20 million a year, what socialism oversees, that is that CEO is going to turn around and spend that money, back into the economy, buy a 20-room mansion for instance. That he is going to hire 15 local contractors, and the local sheetrock and copper pipe companies are literally celebrating.
Or he turns around and invests that money. Either back into his own company and expands it, hires more works, or into other companies, who do the same.
Socialism would say, limit him to make $500,000. So instead of just making as much as possible, he isn't able to invest/expand, and this money goes back into the government, and back into the unemployed/deadbeats who now aren't able to be hired by that former CEO.
Also, don't forget the real power of the consumer. Just look at what it did the domestic automakers under some misconceived notion that imports are superior
. Except in instances with monopolies or oligopolies (operating software, gas, power/cable), but if you not like that fact the CEO of J.P. Morgan makes that much, bank/invest somewhere else.
 
sickboy

sickboy

Active Member
Here's from the IMF, and it took long enough for me to get a version I could attach. ( I download, print, and scan....anyone know a shortcut???) So much for American superiority.....
 
cowfishrule

cowfishrule

Active Member
funny.. my inlaws bolted out of romainia to escape communism and redistribution of wealth to live a better life here in 1987. electing obama would basically be throwing them back 20 years, but different location.
 
jdl

jdl

Member
Originally Posted by SigmaChris
http:///forum/post/2814230
That isn't entirely true...a landlord most likely builds property taxes into the rent. It wouldn't be a good business move to rent a property and not charge a rent that covers all expenses and a little profit.
yes most likely it is built it into the rent, but I would like to see direct payment. This would also help the housing market with the removal of property taxes. Where would this money come from if it was removed? Raise sales tax or something else, but that is another topic.
 
sickboy

sickboy

Active Member

Originally Posted by AquaKnight
http:///forum/post/2814417
Also, don't forget the real power of the consumer. Just look at what it did the domestic automakers under some misconceived notion that imports are superior
. Except in instances with monopolies or oligopolies (operating software, gas, power/cable), but if you not like that fact the CEO of J.P. Morgan makes that much, bank/invest somewhere else.
A) I drive a '99 Nissan that gets over 30mpg. Did you catch that it was made in 1999 (well 98 really), and it gets better gas mileage than the new high mpg cars the american companies are putting out this year. So, I'm one of those that know they are superior....
B) Ok, so bank somewhere else....where are they going to borrow their money from??? J.P. Morgan etc....
I have no problem with people making a lot of money, for some reason you make it seem like I'm against it. but if they are investing in their own company, then the net income decreases -> lower tax liability. If they invest pre-tax money in a retirement fund -> lowers net income -> lowers tax liability. Its when you need way too much money (greed) when you get taxed.
Plus, if you give the middle class more money, they will turn around and spend it at the 'rich' person's business. So the real question is, do you want to directly give more money to the upper class and hope it trickles down, or do you want to give it indirectly to the upper class by letting the middle class keep more to spend and therefore pumping up GDP? That is the basic question. Anyone who thinks that taxed money is lost is neglecting the fact that those who are taxed the most own the most assets. The rich don't need people to watch out for them, they will remain rich.
 
sickboy

sickboy

Active Member
Originally Posted by JDL
http:///forum/post/2814435
yes most likely it is built it into the rent, but I would like to see direct payment. This would also help the housing market with the removal of property taxes. Where would this money come from if it was removed? Raise sales tax or something else, but that is another topic.
What difference does it make if the tenent pays it through the landlord or directly??? It doesn't.....
 
veni vidi vici

veni vidi vici

Active Member
Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/2814423
Here's from the IMF, and it took long enough for me to get a version I could attach. ( I download, print, and scan....anyone know a shortcut???) So much for American superiority.....
I would ask you to take a look at that chart again in the near future.
 
veni vidi vici

veni vidi vici

Active Member
Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/2814424
And I suppose he's solely responsible.

Its just another pattern hes attached to.Here is another one he is attached to "Illinois Constitution Convention" It seems that Obama and the other Dems here dont like it the way it is and want to "CHANGE" it.Its worked just fine for a long time just the way it is.But.......We need change they say.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/2814375
Ya know...you guys keep saying the word socialism like we are stupid enough to be swayed by this argument. It isn't the cold war anymore!
What is the main difference between socialism and capitalism? Private property. Has anyone said your house was going to become gov't property??
Also, stdreb, I would like to see some of this data that shows the European economies aren't as good as ours. I'm pretty sure their currency was kicking our butt until recently. And Europe isn't "socialist," but so many like to call it this b/c our economic philosophy has become "supply side or its socialism". Were we socialist between 92-2000? And did it hurt our economy? No.
And you are slightly wrong the MAIN difference between socialism/marxism and Capitalism is the reward for labor/intellectual ideas/services, which is private property.
All you have to do is look at their employment rates. Their markets are for the most part mature so you posting growth rates is mute, 2% or 3% either way that is fine. Inflation rates in europe are significantly higher as well.
And seriously what does the value of currency vs a different currency really have to do with "proof" that their economy or our is better?

Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/2814367
Capitalism does not equal supply side economics. Its a recent phenomenon, and even Alan Greenspan admitted that he was wrong for believing only in the one theory.
The key thing alan said in that whole mess, was that they failed to properly price risk. Because well they had none they could just sell it to fanny and freddy. There was no failure in his core beliefs as greenspan had said.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member

Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/2814438
I have no problem with people making a lot of money, for some reason you make it seem like I'm against it. but if they are investing in their own company, then the net income decreases -> lower tax liability. If they invest pre-tax money in a retirement fund -> lowers net income -> lowers tax liability. Its when you need way too much money (greed) when you get taxed.
Plus, if you give the middle class more money, they will turn around and spend it at the 'rich' person's business. So the real question is, do you want to directly give more money to the upper class and hope it trickles down, or do you want to give it indirectly to the upper class by letting the middle class keep more to spend and therefore pumping up GDP? That is the basic question. Anyone who thinks that taxed money is lost is neglecting the fact that those who are taxed the most own the most assets. The rich don't need people to watch out for them, they will remain rich.
Here is what I don't get WHERE DOES THE "MIDDLE CLASS" GET THE MONEY? Working? Government? Come on.
 
sickboy

sickboy

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2814464
Here is what I don't get WHERE DOES THE "MIDDLE CLASS" GET THE MONEY? Working? Government? Come on.
Well, I would say its obvious that most people in the middle class work, so not paying as much in taxes.
I'm all for the don't pay as much in taxes, but there is no way that either Obama or McCain will drastically cut spending so someone has to pay for it. I would much rather cut out a lot of gov't spending as most of it is not needed. But, a spending freeze would wreak havoc on our economy, but go figure the guy that doesn't know anything about economics suggests this. This would be worse than increasing taxes....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top