i think an interesting fact to point out is that less than one percent of the national GDP is even spent on welfare, so how is that a leech when lots more is spent on wars and giving money to banks who than lend out "golden parachutes" to their highest investors which equals out to over 500 billion dollars. also keep in mind at all times that the tax pay less taxes because of Reaganomics and the Bush tax cuts, which is that the less they pay to the government, the more they have to spend. Tha tmoney goes into the economy, and creates jobs.

However, this is an unreliable economic model as the last 30 years have shown us. The 80's had a higher statistic of uemployed, don't listen to the pundits, than today, but they still had a higher Capital Gains tax, which is the tax on all sources of income outside of a regular job.

Most of the "uber" rich in our nation earn their money from dividends, which is barely taxed at the moment and they put that money in offshore accounts and save it. People aren't spending, they are saving. The rich are rich because they know how to invest and save. Company CEO's invest money in eachothers companies on Wall Street, and than invest the increased earning they acquire through dividends. All the investing and saving, and lets not forget loop holes and thievery, that occurs does nothing to build up society.

The man and/or woman on welfare is hardly the issue, but more of a thermometer for the nation's illness. The higher the poverty line, they more there are. The more there are, the better indication that something is wrong.

Thats a little on my opinion, you can find all my facts and statements on the web. including statistics, i have to go to work lol.

demoman314

wasnt expecting smart people. But during a recession everyone has to sacrifice... the top 1% sacrifice the least becauase they are the most patriotic. The poor people sacrifice the most, by starving to death.... because i think starving to death is about the same as a marginal tax increase. Equal sacrifices imo.

[QUOTE="SoBaus"]

[QUOTE="SUD123456"]

In theory that argument can be made. In practical terms, not so much. In the US, the federal corporate tax rate is essentially flat after $335K of income.

Big business is far more concerned with other big business than it is with micro or small business. Of course, in theory big business is concerned about all competitors. From big business point of view, competitor threats and the relation to the tax system is essentially none though as it gets flat very quickly.

As far as innovation, the much greater fear is that a another big competitor will simply acquire the idea/technology/innovation of a small outfit. The incidence of small entities being bought by larger entities is orders of magnitude larger than small entities growing into large entities and competeing against entrenched players.

SUD123456

big business also spends millions a year in lobbyists salaries, and its not because lobbyists dont work. Honestly name the last small business you know of, that overtook a long standing big business.

Ill give you a hint, all those lobbyists arent lobbying congress for lower fees for small business, so they can compete in a free market.

Again, what is your point? Those lobbyists are lobbying for the self interests of their employers. Frankly, if it is a big business lobby they don't care at all about the problems of the small business. Why should they?

Moreover,what is your definition of a free market in this regard? Artificially lower fees for small business is a free market, how?I'd say the same thingfor big business fee/tax breaks, etc. But why shouldn't big business be able to use its natural strengths as competitive advantages?

i have no real definition of free market, its more of a jab to those free market economists that think the big bang applies to economy. But ecven republicans suck the boner of big business. And the reason why big business shouldnt be allowed to have a competitive advantage, is the same reason everyone knows thomas edison, but not nikola tesla... despite the fact that that edison was a crook and tesla what a brilliant engineer that is the reason we have modern electronics. Edison ran a smear campaign against tesla and his AC current, beause tesla was way smarter than him.

Dumb people like edison fear smart people like tesla, its natural. Its how big business stifles innovation.

Well both are putting money back into the economy, but the poor guy is also taking money, whereas I am assuming the rich guy inherited his money. If that's the case, then the rich guy's money would have been taxed and he would have contributed more through that taxation than the poor guy will in his entire life. Plus, assuming he's rich, he also purchases more items, also contributing more money to the economy. This is because you have to assume that he needs to eat, much the same as the poor man, so he will be contributing the same amount of money (if not more because he's wealthy) when purchasing food and basic necessities. So the poor man is more detrimental to society. Although the rich man does not work, he has far more to give back to society than the poor man who also never works.

Ghost_702

but the only reason he has more to give back is because it was given to him, right? So if welfare guy and rich guy switched places, would anyone bat an eyelash?

[QUOTE="SoBaus"]

[QUOTE="Rekunta"]Actually tongue is very fattening. Lots of fat. Maybe not the best cut, but best to me. Nothing beats the taste. Some A1, mashed potatoes. Mmmmm. It's hard to find though-most major chains don't have it. :(Rekunta

what cow has a fat tongue? im not saying you are wrong, but im saying im skeptical.

i believe you then. Still counterintuitive for me.... then again im not the best cook :P

You are probably a better cook than me, but im not about to eat your cow tongue either way. :P

Its always gonna seem gross for me.

[QUOTE="SoBaus"]

[QUOTE="chaoscougar1"] Ahhhh, once again, no. You cannot blanket the entire economy as a monopoly/oligopoly. It is industry specific. The five forces of competition also helps to weed out the companies aren't good enough to make it. You are talking like its impossible to start a new business and have it be successful; Google and Facebook did not start at their current size... You seem so hell bent on "blaming big business" that you can't see the flaw in your argument. Do some research, gain some knowledge and then come back to me. You said you wanted a free market, then you said you wanted big businesses to be regulated so they couldn't do anything about competition. Make up your mind, you can't have bothSUD123456

When a technological revolution comes around its the catalyst for new companies. Obviously internet comapnies can compete with other new internet companies... of which none existed prior.

Tell me though, in old industry... when was the last time you filled up your gas tank at a company less than 50 years old? Doesnt happen, because barriers to entry are the drug of industry. How many up and comers are there in the oil industry?

I am not sure what your point is any more. Of course there are barriers to entry in any market. And in old markets, that is typically size and scale related when it comes to big business. There are a zillion up and comers in the oil and gas markets. They are almost entirely bought out by big business once they get to some mid-sized level. What does this have to do with the tax structure or god forbid, the OP?

why do oil companies spend milliones per year on lobbyists that accomplish nothing? seems like a waste of money... yet they have been doing ti for over 20 years.

[QUOTE="SoBaus"]

[QUOTE="chaoscougar1"] hahahahahahahahah, omg, hahahahaha So everyone who is rich now, was born rich? All their wealth was endowed to them? Give me a break, most of them have competed and they won, hence why they are currently wealthy. That is not the purpose of the porgressive tax system at all, your arguments are way too flawed and I doubt you have any economic knowledge what so ever. I really don't want to burst your bubble either, but America is essentially a free market system :lol:SUD123456

You are missing the point entirely. A progressive tax structure, gives lower rates to up and comers... its helps small business get bigger. Big business doesnt like small business getting bigger because it may outperform them. And they may have to compete with them.. so big corporation want to stifle innovation.

ITs like if i was the toughest man in the world and made my living off my status, i would be against giving babies milk and nutrients because i dont wont those babies getting strong enough to fight me and challenge my status.

In theory that argument can be made. In practical terms, not so much. In the US, the federal corporate tax rate is essentially flat after $335K of income.

Big business is far more concerned with other big business than it is with micro or small business. Of course, in theory big business is concerned about all competitors. From big business point of view, competitor threats and the relation to the tax system is essentially none though as it gets flat very quickly.

As far as innovation, the much greater fear is that a another big competitor will simply acquire the idea/technology/innovation of a small outfit. The incidence of small entities being bought by larger entities is orders of magnitude larger than small entities growing into large entities and competeing against entrenched players.

big business also spends millions a year in lobbyists salaries, and its not because lobbyists dont work. Honestly name the last small business you know of, that overtook a long standing big business.

Ill give you a hint, all those lobbyists arent lobbying congress for lower fees for small business, so they can compete in a free market.

[QUOTE="SoBaus"]

[QUOTE="Rekunta"]

If you really did those, they look damn tasty. Looks like you could be a professional cook to me. I'm looking to go to a cooking school, but want it more so I can cook for myself as I find it incredibly satisfying when I make a good meal, plus cooking relaxes me.

I know how to make a few things.....beef tongue (best cut of the cow), hot dogs, spaghetti, BBQ steaks, baked chicken, beef stroganoff, and all the usual side dishes (mashed potatoes, brocolli, rice, etc.) but my best creation by far is garlic chicken. Six thighs browned, then cooked with garlic and mushrooms in white wine and chicken broth. Best. Food. Ever.

I really wish there were a cooking union here on GS.

Rekunta

beef tongue best cut? its 100% muscle, no fat.... I mean if you thinks its tasty... eat the hell out of it.

But in terms of what makes a good cut of meat on a technical level, beef tongue is worse than flank steak :P

what cow has a fat tongue? im not saying you are wrong, but im saying im skeptical.

[QUOTE="SoBaus"]

[QUOTE="chaoscougar1"] hahahahahahahahah, omg, hahahahaha So everyone who is rich now, was born rich? All their wealth was endowed to them? Give me a break, most of them have competed and they won, hence why they are currently wealthy. That is not the purpose of the porgressive tax system at all, your arguments are way too flawed and I doubt you have any economic knowledge what so ever. I really don't want to burst your bubble either, but America is essentially a free market system :lol:chaoscougar1

You are missing the point entirely. A progressive tax structure, gives lower rates to up and comers... its helps small business get bigger. Big business doesnt like small business getting bigger because it may outperform them. And they may have to compete with them.. so big corporation want to stifle innovation.

ITs like if i was against giving babies milk and nutrients because i dont wont those babies getting strong enough to fight me.

When a technological revolution comes around its the catalyst for new companies. Obviously internet comapnies can compete with other new internet companies... of which none existed prior.

Tell me though, in old industry... when was the last time you filled up your gas tank at a company less than 50 years old? Doesnt happen, because barriers to entry are the drug of industry. How many up and comers are there in the oil industry?

[QUOTE="SoBaus"]

[QUOTE="chaoscougar1"]

I did not realise you were the single person who decided who deserves money and who does not, who has earned and who hasn't. My mistake :roll:

Your arguments are absolutely ridiculous, when did I or anyone else say success is about who your parents are? Well didn't the parents have to work hard for it? Also, believe it or not, there a couple of million people in the US and strangely enough they can be divided into more categories than "trust fund kid" and "person on welfare" :shock:

Your arguments are massive generalisations with no factual standing, do us all a favour and quit while you are behind.

chaoscougar1

fine, lets do this. a progressive tax structure helps everyone by helping all the great entrepenuers with great business ideas build their businesses into to empires, like google, microsoft, and apple by giving them low tax rates during their formative stages.

The only reason to have a tax structure that rewards the rich, is because rich people are afraid to compete with up and comers in a free market system, because they are afraid they are smarter and harder workers. So they want to use government tax barriers to stifle competition.

You are missing the point entirely. A progressive tax structure, gives lower rates to up and comers... its helps small business get bigger. Big business doesnt like small business getting bigger because it may outperform them. And they may have to compete with them.. so big corporation want to stifle innovation.

ITs like if i was the toughest man in the world and made my living off my status, i would be against giving babies milk and nutrients because i dont wont those babies getting strong enough to fight me and challenge my status.

[QUOTE="SUD123456"]

[QUOTE="SoBaus"]

tax cuts. Taxes have to be paid, if they arent being paid by the rich (the most able to pay) then they have to be paid by the middle cIass and poor. AKA trickle down.

chaoscougar1

The rich guy has no income, because he has never worked a day in his life. Therefore, he pays no income tax at all. Moreover,being funded by taxpayer money implies a direct transfer from gov't to an individual.

yea rich guy has income because he has finance experts handle his money... hes not smarter, hes not harder working than your run of the mill welfare queen. And he has a much lower income tax than a hard blue collar working guy because hes taxed at the low low bargain basement luxury rate for capital gains.

any person on welfare would be so happy to get 10% of those investment returns... and would put in just as much work, which is none.