Senate Health Bill Price Tag, Rosy Deficit Estimate Assailed as 'Fantasy', page 2

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times

reply posted on 20-11-2009 @ 12:09 AM by Janky Red

Originally posted by HotSauce
reply to post by Seiko

Part of the problem is money management.

Lowering taxes wont fix mismanagement but it gies them less to mismanage. Maybe.

Taxes are a tricky beast because raising taxes doesn't always have the intended consequence of more revenue. If businesses cut jobs because demand goes down because people are over taxed then you end up with less revenue. Which is kind of similar to what we see happening now. Raise taxes in NY people move their families and businesses out of NY. Less revenue.

Nobody is saying feel sory for the rich. Most busness owner are not that rich. But even those that are.. we need them to have a desire to invest or we are screwed.

The new health bill is a hidden tax on the middle class,

Yes this is right.. It is a tax hike on the rich and the middle class

I would say life is a tax on the middle class, be it bill or tax...

It is the semantics that bother I suppose

Would you feel happy if healthcare was extended to many and did not have impact on the regular small business man?

reply posted on 20-11-2009 @ 12:09 AM by jam321

We are a service industry.

We no longer believe in getting our hands dirty.

Our job is to get educated and invent a bunch of ideas(BS) that the world will buy in hope of getting rich quick.

Won't be long we will start selling our ASSets to make ends meet. In the process we will be servicing everybody while wondering what the hell happened to the real jobs.

Jobs that left calluses on the hand, made men out of boys, and created pride when one read the Made in America label.

IMO, if Congress ever found a way to have a balance budget, we could afford to give businesses tax cuts. But Congress must also provide the necessary oversight and corrective punishment to ensure that these taxes are actually benefiting the American taxpayers.

As it is now, Congress and corporations seem to be one in the same as they take turns and gang up on the American taxpayers.

reply posted on 20-11-2009 @ 12:09 AM by endisnighe

Let me explain simple economics to you fracking people that think taxes are a godsend to the US.

It costs a business x dollars to work in the US-it costs x/2 to work in another country and costs x/4 to ship back to the US. x>x/2+x/4 so excuse me if I do not like the Global Economic model.

You are all missing the FRACKING POINT. If no one is working in the US, how the FRACK do you expect anyone but the Elite and the government workers to buy anything?

I am so sick and tired of you fracking morons that cannot see that 1+1=2

Do I need to spell it any clearer?

reply posted on 20-11-2009 @ 12:15 AM by HotSauce

reply to post by Janky Red

Would you feel happy if healthcare was extended to many and did not have impact on the regular small business man?

I would feel happy and want to extend healthcare to the many if we had a 12 trillion dollar surplus instead of 12trillion in debt and another 100trilion in unfunded liabilities.

There is NO way that you can fund tax care to the entire nation without massive tax hikes or massive increases to the deficit.

How are we going to pay the bills when the Chinese and the rest of the world decide we are too far in debt to loan another dime too? What are you going to do when the dollar collapses and becomes worthless to the point that its only use is to wipe your ass?

[edit on 20-11-2009 by HotSauce]

reply posted on 20-11-2009 @ 12:16 AM by Janky Red

Originally posted by HotSauce
reply to post by TheWalkingFox

Then let them. If a company is going to blackmail the American people - "give us your money or we'll try to dick you over" then we don't need them. They can piss off to Somalia and enjoy a nice little government-free tax haven, if they really want.

You know I think if Obama pushes through all these new taxes then many more will move out of the country. Then you will really be screwed. The 3% rich and corp pay over 50% of the taxes in this country. So let them leave and then see how things work out for you.

HE is right though Eisenhower taxed them at 90%, the economy grew and we paid off much of the war debt of WWII.

You guys forget that the %3 rich are receiving more and more of the entire GDP each year. Mean while we make the same, support the inflated prices and fall farther and farther behind each year.

In my lifetime I will witness the first trillionaire's emerge

$1,000,000,000,000.00

Why would they leave when they have half a country who supports their claim on American livelyhood's?

reply posted on 20-11-2009 @ 12:22 AM by HotSauce

reply to post by Janky Red

Ok let me explain this to you. When "Eisenhower taxed them at 90%" there wasn't a global economy where you could make stuff anywhere in the world and ship it to the USA cost effectively. Businesses have mastered taking jobs offshore. It would be NOTHING for Microsoft or GM or CISCO or Google. etc.. To pack up and move to another country nowdays. After WW2 Europe and Asia were destroyed. They had no capacity to manufacture because it was all in the process of being rebuilt. If you don't believe me read a history book or a book on modern day economics. This is not 1950 anymore. The world has changed.

reply posted on 20-11-2009 @ 12:27 AM by Janky Red

Originally posted by HotSauce
reply to post by Janky Red

Ok let me explain this to you. When "Eisenhower taxed them at 90%" there wasn't a global economy where you could make stuff anywhere in the world and ship it to the USA cost effectively. Businesses have mastered taking jobs offshore. It would be NOTHING for Microsoft or GM or CISCO or Google. etc.. To pack up and move to another country nowdays. After WW2 Europe and Asia were destroyed. They had no capacity to manufacture because it was all in the process of being rebuilt. If you don't believe me read a history book or a book on modern day economics. This is not 1950 anymore. The world has changed.

OK - say what do you say to the modern appearance of the National Debt and Reagans
tax cuts?

There is a direct correlation - cause somehow letting the producers keep all the extra cash did not help the federal budget.

reply posted on 20-11-2009 @ 12:29 AM by TheWalkingFox

reply to post by HotSauce

Hate to break it to you, but "Atlas Shrugged" was a poorly-conceived work of fiction that was the result of one sad, mentally unstable woman's constant attempts to "get back" at Bolsheviks who took away her pony.

The world doesn't actually work that way.

Again. Let the extortionist companies go wherever they want. The truth is, they're not going to find a better base of operations than the United States, nor will they find a better body of consumers, nor will they find a better source of non-slave labor.

We are a business mecca, regardless of taxes. If a company wishes to mov to a stateless tax haven, then let them. They'll be extinct within two years, I guarantee you.

[edit on 20-11-2009 by TheWalkingFox]

reply posted on 20-11-2009 @ 12:35 AM by HotSauce

reply to post by Janky Red

OK - say what do you say to the modern appearance of the National Debt and Reagans
tax cuts?

There is a direct correlation - cause somehow letting the producers keep all the extra cash did not help the federal budget.

Actually a decent question. I will even give you a star after I reply.

Actualy the tax cuts were not the problem. Over time tax revenue actually increased because of the cuts, BUT THE GOVERNMENT KEPT INCREASING SPENDING.

Reagan went crazy spending on the military. Did you ever hear of the Star War program. He had a strategy to bankrupt the USSR by getting them to have to increase their spendng to stay competitive. It worked.

But also Medicare and Social Security was underfunded and so that also increased spending to keep it viable.

The fact is Reagan overspent and every president after him overspent. Fortunately for Clinton their was the dotcom boom and tax revenues outpaced predictions and spending until the boom.

[edit on 20-11-2009 by HotSauce]

reply posted on 20-11-2009 @ 12:38 AM by Seiko

reply to post by HotSauce

This is one of the most enlightened things I've ever heard you say. I disagree with you a lot, but I'm going to star this just because you made sense.

I still think lowering taxes isn't going to help, and you're wrong about the model of pre 60's economics not working. If the corporations control 90% of the wealth they should pay 90% of the taxes. Simplistic, but there it is.

reply posted on 20-11-2009 @ 12:39 AM by HotSauce

reply to post by TheWalkingFox

Keep dreaming. There are over 1 billion chinese and 1 billion Indians and nearly as many Pakistani CONSUMERS.

If we go down the Chinese would be glad to facilitate more busineses. They are buiding out new infrastructure at a hellish pace and are more than capable of replicating anything business or infrastructure we hae created in the US.

reply posted on 20-11-2009 @ 12:49 AM by HotSauce

Originally posted by Seiko
reply to post by HotSauce

This is one of the most enlightened things I've ever heard you say. I disagree with you a lot, but I'm going to star this just because you made sense.

I still think lowering taxes isn't going to help, and you're wrong about the model of pre 60's economics not working. If the corporations control 90% of the wealth they should pay 90% of the taxes. Simplistic, but there it is.

Well thanks for having such low standards for me that all I need to do for a star is make sense.

The only way pre 60's economics would work is if we cut off almost all imports from the rest of the world andif we did that prices on everyday items would skyrocket.

Let me try to explain about taxes. 90% of the wealth in the hands of individuals makes way more sense than putting it in the hands of government and here is why.

People who are wealty don't hide billions in their backyard. They put itin banks and banks lend it or even better the rich invest it directly. Investment creates jobs..not government jobs that cost us money, but real jobs the ones that actually pay more into government than they take out.

I know a fair number of rich people and none of them sit on money, even after they have retired. They look at money as a tool to make more money and the only way you make more is to invest wisely.

For instance, Bill Gates doesn't sit around with 50 billion just staring at it. He has it almost all tied into investments or going into new startups. These things create opportunty, innovation, and jobs. What would happen if that same 50billion was in the hands of Congress?

[edit on 20-11-2009 by HotSauce]

reply posted on 20-11-2009 @ 12:58 AM by HotSauce

reply to post by Janky Red

Just so you don't think I am just blowing smoke up your behinds here are some links to back up what I have said.

Reagan Tax Cuts 1

Reagan Tax Cuts 2

[edit on 20-11-2009 by HotSauce]

Pages: << 1 2 >> ^^TOP^^