jamius.com

sjvsworldtour wrote:The problem here is the concept that we should send our money to Washington and have them spread it around. For some things it makes sense, like the military or interstates. But for others it is just wacky. If I have a school across the street that needs funding and I send it to Washington and they send it to the school. The problem is that along the way people get paid for handling the dollar. By when the money gets to the school my dollar is ten cents that the school is complaining about why I only sent 10 cents.

This! Also, (I haven't researched this ) But I hear that sometimes when the government collects money for a cause, all of that money doesn't make it to that cause. Take a simple example of roads. Your roads suck, your local government says it'll collect this extra tax to fix the roads. You pay that tax, but the roads never see that money. I wish that when they say it'll go somewhere, ALL of it has to go there.

So... you can fill out a form, or a check box (with a space for "other", so people can write things in).

See, this would be awesome, but nobody would ever check "hospital", until they needed it. No one would check "roads" until the roads sucked, then they'd complain that the roads suck.

Believe it or not, I believe we get what we ask for from the government. The problem is we don't get what we want. The same is true of businesses.

sjvsworldtour wrote:Another common misconception is that lowering taxes brings in less money and raising taxes increases the amount of money you bring in. It just isn't that simple.

Um... actually, it's pretty close to that simple. You can overtax the poor while under-taxing the rich, which will crash an economy as a whole thus bringing in less taxes, but other than that, it's pretty much that simple.

Most people who would have you believe otherwise have a vested interest in keeping taxes low for the uber-rich. The theory of trickle-down (supply side) economics has been dis-proven again and again, by multiple easily observable and obviously correlated events in this country's history.
The big problem is that history is re-written by those with the money. The amount of misinformation and propaganda in our society is mind boggling. The cause and effect of our country's financial history has been misrepresented by a media owned and driven by the multinational giants that want to keep their taxes low or non-existent, and maximize profits for their shareholders.
Right now, most of the media's still trying to blame the recent financial crash on the little guy who bought a house he couldn't afford. They generally leave out the facts that none of it would have happened with real government oversight of our major financial instruments, or without the irresponsible policy changes regarding commodity futures trading (like naked short selling) and commercial banking restrictions dealing with speculation.
These policy changes were initiated by Clinton and expanded by Bush, and the fact is they demonstrate the massive sway the very wealthy have over our government and media thanks to their ever-present and highly paid fleets of "lobbyist" lawyers.

The rich already pay the majority of the taxes. Tickle down economics have been shown to work and it is pretty darn simple. How many jobs can a poor person create?

Additionally, if you increase the taxes, the rich just send their money overseas so you collect absolutely no taxes on it. How do I know? I actually talked with one of the mega-rich. It isn't that they don't want to do business in the United States. It is just that it is a poor investment. So basically by deciding to tax the evil rich or big companies you vote yourself right out of a job.

The media doesn't promote not taxing the rich. The media is centered around buying the poor's votes. It is that simple. And there is a vested interest of politicians to buy poor people's votes and by doing so, ensure they remain poor. It isn't a republican or democrat thing. It is how both parties operate. People just are not educated enough to see it.

The popular media view is to demonize the rich and big business when the fact is, we need big business and believe it or not, we need rich people. We need the mega-rich to exist. Why? Because the rich invest and make the profits you are talking about. The wise rich that invest in the right place become richer, while those that do not end up broke, which is as it should be. The people that no where money can be invested to increase productivity need to be the ones investing it.

There is a reason we have a two party system. It is so that when things don't work, there is always another party to blame. What is even more sad is that the politicians know that what they propose will not work. They know increasing taxes doesn't necessarily bring in more money. Why do they do it? Because the less informed don't realize this and their goal is to get elected, not fix the problems.

Why I don't like discussing politics is because of this abuse of the American people and people believing that either the democrats or republicans are right. Neither are right. They intentionally try to create the us them atmosphere between the rich and poor to suit their political needs. Their goal is to maintain the permanent lower class by creating this division. The rich and big business need us just like we need them.

And as for stock holders, anyone can be a stock holder. If there is such huge profits to be made, but stock. That is what I do and I am far from rich. But just like the rich, more and more of my money is being invested overseas because the U.S. has become a bad investment.

What is the answer? Well, that is the saddest part of all because it is so simple: productivity. This is not a zero sum game. Attempting to play Robinhood and steal from the rich and give to the poor doesn't fix the issues, as has clearly been seen. Raising taxes on the rich to give it to someone else is simply stealing, and that is wrong. A flat tax rate would make a lot better sense. Remember back in the early 80s when we had the 90% tax bracket. We should have been loaded with money because look at all the money we were stealing from the rich, but then they lowered taxes and brought in more money. It isn't actually trickle down. It is simply if the money moves around and the economy does well, there is more to tax.

The real solution is enabling people to be productive, rather than the current system that is willing to pay them to do nothing. Increase productivity and you make things better for everyone, as seen in the 80s and 90s.

Well, I need to stop talking politics because what the media shows irritates me so bad. I hate to see the American public lied to, but whether you are a republican or a democrat, both parties are playing the exact same game. The vote buying is just done a bit different with the republicans.

Now, hopefully I will shut up about politics.

Sjvsworldtour, I totally disagree with your approach, your convictions, and your conclusions. But I really appreciate your tone and your thoughtful response. Thank you for that. I will elaborate on my opinions at a later date (I actually enjoy this kind of thing), but for now, cheers!

Very cool. Agreeing to disagree is a good thing. It may be hard to imagine, but I could be wrong occasionally.

The thing is, we've been trying trickle-down. Taxes over the last ten years on the rich are lower than they've been in several decades. By the logic of "don't tax the job creators", there should be job recruiters chasing everybody down the street offering big salaries.

And yet the economy sucks. I think that the low tax theory has been proven ineffective, and even bad for the economy.

The answer to that is pretty simple. Our top corporate take rate is around 39%. Canada's is 26%. Where would you want to locate your business? Personally, I am sending a lot of my money overseas.

sjvsworldtour wrote:The answer to that is pretty simple. Our top corporate take rate is around 39%. Canada's is 26%. Where would you want to locate your business? Personally, I am sending a lot of my money overseas.

That's the rate. How many of the really huge corporations actually pay that rate? Apparently GE doesn't pay any corporate taxes at all.

I have heard the same about GE, too. I don't know what the story is there. It could mean they are not making a profit, which means no taxes. Usually there are more issues to point to than just one. Economic problems aren't typically so simple.