Anti-tax movement holds 'Tea Party' to protest Obama policies

Originally posted by Irish M1ck
reply to post by projectvxn

 

The free market is a joke. The bailout put it on full display, when companies begged for money, and then spent in on superfluous junk. Unbelievable. But these are the people who can't afford a tax hike? These are the people who can't afford to pay decent salaries?

I don't buy it. I can read income statements. I can read statements of owners equity, and I can read cash flow charts. I know they have money, I know what they do with their money, and I don't buy into this garbage that paying decent wages and/or eating taxes levied UPON THEM will automatically cause them to reach the shut down point.

That's garbage.

Its a scam

the modern GOP tax policy DOES NOT WORK... A scam to redistribute wealth like in GWB era - you want more...
The cause of this mess started in the private sector and now there is a call to give more power back to the private sector.

reply to post by mental modulator


Are you not reading? Why do you think economics has ANYTHING to do with politics? They don't know any better. Conservatives, democrats, they're politicians, and they run the government. NOT the market.

Free-markets are NOT conservative ideology. It's economic science. Political ideology is religion. The two don't mix so stop trying to stir the pot with it.

reply to post by projectvxn


I am well aware of the ins and outs of the market. I am not an economist, but I have taken basic economics courses, and I understand the law of supply and demand. I also currently understand how businesses model their prices, how they divide up tax increases, economies of scale, etc.

It's not relevant. It will never be relevant. As long as there are people earning ridiculous salaries off of the backs of hard workers, who wages are unlivable, then it won't be relevant.

Capiche?

reply to post by mental modulator


No, I agree. There is no way for anyone to look at this system and not see how it is designed for all of the money to filter upwards. It is redistribution of wealth alright - straight into the pockets of the wealthy.

[edit on 3/3/2009 by Irish M1ck]

reply to post by Irish M1ck



It is relevant. If you knew anything of how the market mechanics WORK, as in more than a few economics courses, you'd know better than to assume that he who works legally and ethically for his chuck of the pie should be able to keep it. Charity is a personal choice not a mandate.



[edit on 3-3-2009 by projectvxn]


You're correct what is going on right now, since the Bush administration, is wealth redistribution. The policy has not changed, just the targets.

[edit on 3-3-2009 by projectvxn]

reply to post by projectvxn


That's fine, but it is my opinion that one's chunk of the pie does not need to be so large that it strangles everyone else's chance of having a piece. There is no need to understand economics to have that opinion.

[edit on 3/3/2009 by Irish M1ck]

Originally posted by projectvxn

Originally posted by Irish M1ck
reply to post by projectvxn

 

The free market is a joke. The bailout put it on full display, when companies begged for money, and then spent in on superfluous junk. Unbelievable. But these are the people who can't afford a tax hike? These are the people who can't afford to pay decent salaries?

I don't buy it. I can read income statements. I can read statements of owners equity, and I can read cash flow charts. I know they have money, I know what they do with their money, and I don't buy into this garbage that paying decent wages and/or eating taxes levied UPON THEM will automatically cause them to reach the shut down point.

That's garbage.

Here you go assuming most rich people go around looking for ways to screw other, and this isn't the case. Many have made their fortunes ethically and legally. Apple anyone? Steve Jobs' history is quite well documented, we know of his humble beginnings, and Apple is now the most marketable company in technology. And we all benefit from it. No one should have to subsidize crime. And that's that we're doing.

I recommend you look into how the market works. Not how the news or the political pundits say they work, but how it actually works, before you say the free-market is a joke. You obviously ignored the entire part of my post where I addressed these sort of issues. I said specifically that there should be NO collusion with government and big business and VICE VERSA.

"A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have."

The free market is a joke

Its a scam - and when coupled with a Laissez Faire elite like a bush good things happen, now don't they?

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by mental modulator

 

Are you not reading? Why do you think economics has ANYTHING to do with politics? They don't know any better. Conservatives, democrats, they're politicians, and they run the government. NOT the market.

Free-markets are NOT conservative ideology. It's economic science. Political ideology is religion. The two don't mix so stop trying to stir the pot with it.

OK - we can sight pre French revolution - HOW did that work

they starved the beast

they starved the people

Stating the same philosophy you are advocating some 200 + years latter

We need progress not the - bloody failed history of the past.

Originally posted by Irish M1ck
reply to post by projectvxn

 

That's fine, but it is my opinion that one's chunk of the pie does not need to be so large that it strangles everyone else's chance of having a piece. There is no need to understand economics to have that opinion.

[edit on 3/3/2009 by Irish M1ck]

Agreed. That is why we have anti-trust laws. As I said before, large corporations like the conglomerates we have today are ANTI-freemarket. They corner markets, they stifle competition, this creates wage gaps which create credit crises, the government promotes this crap, like sub-prime(a well intentioned government intervention, and the rest is current events). again, every time the government dips it's finger into the market it creates scarcity. you cannot artificially inflate bubbles the way the fed does, with the blessing of congress and the presidency, and expect to have a sustainable economy. We've been doing this for 40 years, when in that time has policy changed from politician to politician?

Regardless of what the government does or doesn't do we will have a depression in this country. If the government starts intervening it will only make it worse. Math doesn't lie, and lies can't be proven. But it stops neither party from doing so. It is not your right to tell someone how much they can make so long as they follow PROPER business practices.

Originally posted by mental modulator

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by mental modulator

 

Are you not reading? Why do you think economics has ANYTHING to do with politics? They don't know any better. Conservatives, democrats, they're politicians, and they run the government. NOT the market.

Free-markets are NOT conservative ideology. It's economic science. Political ideology is religion. The two don't mix so stop trying to stir the pot with it.

OK - we can sight pre French revolution - HOW did that work

they starved the beast

they starved the people

Stating the same philosophy you are advocating some 200 + years latter

We need progress not the - bloody failed history of the past.

Again that was government intervention. They allowed people NO recourse for their hard work. They TAXED them to death, and people starved while the Aristocracy lived in lavish comfort.

reply to post by mental modulator


Here you go again ignoring my posts and responding blindly. I make no distinction from Bush to Obama to any other politician.

Originally posted by projectvxn

Originally posted by Irish M1ck
reply to post by projectvxn

 

That's fine, but it is my opinion that one's chunk of the pie does not need to be so large that it strangles everyone else's chance of having a piece. There is no need to understand economics to have that opinion.

[edit on 3/3/2009 by Irish M1ck]

They corner markets, they stifle competition, this creates wage gaps which create credit crises, the government promotes this crap, like sub-prime.

Regardless of what the government does or doesn't do we will have a depression in this country. If the government starts intervening it will only make it worse. Math doesn't lie, and lies can't be proven. But it stops neither party from doing so. It is not your right to tell someone how much they can make so long as they follow PROPER business practices.

The sub prime mess was two things -

The government let LENDERS take advantage - GOV took their eye of the ball and undermined the regulation and standards that were intended to keep the practice safe.

And the business's took advantage - you can sight quotas - the mortgage company I was at - was cranking at 1,200% above government guidelines

GREED - you want to instate - greed without limits?

And as far as bailout- there is a huge dip in the supply of money - ARE YOU GOING TO INVEST HEAVILY????

IS anybody you know READY TOO?

Otherwise the lack of capital will create a cascading effect like pre 29 -

I'll just wait until the market levels out - YA after it has canonballed 90%

[edit on 3-3-2009 by mental modulator]

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by mental modulator

 

Here you go again ignoring my posts and responding blindly. I make no distinction from Bush to Obama to any other politician.

I'm sorry what did I ignore?

I make a distinction - to some degree I understand the ideology that drives both...

reply to post by mental modulator


You're reacting and not taking in what I have said time and time again in post after post. If you actually read what I'm saying you'd know that fraud, caused by government policy as you stated, is something I would work to eradicate from the market. But that's it. I'm not going to punish a business of any size within monopoly laws who make an honest profit by taxing them to cover others' shortfalls.

It is not government's responsibility, it is unconstitutional, and immoral to do so.

Originally posted by Irish M1ck
reply to post by centurion1211

 

No, see, businesses are levied extra taxes for a reason. Instead, what usually happens depends on the elasticity of the product they sell, and how much they can AFFORD to screw us.

Yes, I understand business quite well, and I enjoy practicing it. I just think it should be done ethically.

*Edit:

And they aren't operating at a loss, which is generally why the tax is increased. If the industry was operating at a loss, it would be subsidized, not taxed.

[edit on 3/3/2009 by Irish M1ck]

That answer was nothing more than econ-mumbo-jumbo. Something you maybe heard in a class but have yet to experience in real life.

"Elasticity of the product line"

Try selling that to the typical mom and pop business operating on a razor thin profit margin already. A perfect analogy for that is the selling refrigerators to eskimos one.

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by mental modulator

 

You're reacting and not taking in what I have said time and time again in post after post. If you actually read what I'm saying you'd know that fraud, caused by government policy as you stated, is something I would work to eradicate from the market. But that's it. I'm not going to punish a business of any size within monopoly laws who make an honest profit by taxing them to cover others' shortfalls.

It is not government's responsibility, it is unconstitutional, and immoral to do so.

The fraud is not caused by the policy, it is caused by the people overseeing the execution of the policy and the mega Business's that take advantage...

As far as the taxation - as of recent Warren Buffet pays less % in taxes then his secretary???

The wealthiest Americans have doubled their fortunes in the past eight -unprecedented
growth...

DO YOU KNOW HOW MUCH EISENHOWER taxed the top 1%???

Do you know what we tax them now???

HOW many 10's of % is OBAMA from reaching those tax rates of the 50's???

NOW Eisenhower had WWII debt - but some how managed to reduce the GDN during his term.

reply to post by mental modulator


Taxes are not fair. And this is something I can agree on. This is why I propose an interstate Fair Tax to replace income/payroll taxes.

Edit to add, alot of the opponents of the Fair Tax argue that it would be difficult to implement. I say rubbish, look at the REAL ID act. They also argue that it would increase budget deficits, but a Fair Tax relies on shrinking government. Stop the overseas empire, stop bankrolling despotic regimes, and stop government subsidies.

Consolidate government. Place the CIA in the military and reduce their budget to within military budgets. Abolish DHS, Abolish DEA and ATF. Both are unconstitutional. Shrink the Department of education and allow the states and the community within those states to set education policy. If we allow the people that know their states needs, which are the best to run education, then we make it effective and cost efficient. Abolish the IRS and return to a constitutional tax code. The Fair Tax falls within this framework. Let the states set their own tax policies as well and return the power of the state to it's rightful place.

My argument isn't against the poor or against those who are unfortunate, my argument is against irresponsible governments, market manipulation, murderous and expensive foreign policy...The list goes on and on. I'ma Constitutionalist to the letter. I believe in all those words of independence and justice, and individual rights. Because of that I don't believe in taking people rightfully earned money and giving it to someone else. Robin Hood isn't morality it is class warfare, and I won't subscribe to it.


I recommend reading the Market Ticker. Karl Denninger has been pretty much on the money for some time now. He's all about sound business policy. And is not a partisan. As a matter of fact he hates politicians.
market-ticker.org...



[edit on 3-3-2009 by projectvxn]

[edit on 3-3-2009 by projectvxn]

[edit on 3-3-2009 by projectvxn]

reply to post by projectvxn


Well, then, we are in agreement. Nothing else to be said.

reply to post by centurion1211


No, as you said, that's just basic economics. Sorry if you didn't understand it. What it means:

How necessary the item being sold is in day to day life is directly proportional to how much tax can be passed down to the consumer. So unfortunately, mom and pop stores are the ones who USUALLY eat the tax, because raising prices would just force away more consumers.

It is the larger conglomerates, who benefit from market corners (as pointed out by project) and economies of scale, who can pass the tax down to the consumer and continue raking in large profit margins.

[edit on 3/3/2009 by Irish M1ck]

It seems that we are moving into a strict two class system: those who govern and those who are governed. Those who are governed will work and earn money, the majority of which will be turned over to those who govern to spend as they wish and while they're at it, provide all necessities of life. Not much different from the landowner/peasant situation of old.

Without going into who's to blame for how we got here, current government policy is to incur greater and greater debt pretending it's to "help" or "clean things up" when in fact it is to justify much higher taxation and get control of a variety of industries. Taxation to start in 2011 is anti-business, anti-investor, anti-asset which should prevent anybody from accidentally being successful.

This two class system allows for government officials who need not follow any laws at all (extended to friends/contributors like bernie madoff resting in his apt instead of jail) while the "governed" work with no hope of changing anything since strict limits are placed on what they are allowed to keep. plus they have to obey laws. this part is already pretty much in place, only the "friends of government" section is quite large because of influence peddling and campaign contributions.

How is this an improvement?