It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
My god, i made it through only 2 pages before I decided my pain threshold for poor understanding and loose logic was reached.
Rich people create jobs. If you dispute this, you are doing it by just making stuff up. I know 4 rich people right now who are opening 4 separate hotels that have been mothballed for 20+ years each. They do this by leveraging their net worth for loans that allow them to create the cash flow needed to open a business (each costing in the 30mil + range).
Added in are a bunch of tax credits, etc. An example are the historic tax credits that can be recieved if you follow historic guidelines while restoring. THIS is a "good" tax break for the rich. It creates an ability to create cash flow (by selling the credits on the open market, like you would carbon credits) that allows a recapitalization in the business, or a tax break once opened that allows you to operate more functionally in the first year.
"Bad" tax breaks are income tax deviations. For the life of me i cannot understand two things: why we still have the electoral college, and why we have not instituted a flat tax or a consumption tax.
Originally posted by ABNARTY
reply to post by MystikMushroom
I can speak to the DoD budget. I can tell you America can reduce the spending there and still maintain a good fighting force. Why? A large portion of that spending is wasted. Too many contractors making a killing doing very little, too many companies "supporting" DoD installations that charge insane fees for what they provide, to many items purchased are priced beyond the moon, etc.
Matter of fact, you could actually increase our troop strength (they do not cost a lot in comparison) and reduce the budget. Too many politicians link cut budgets with less defense capability. Not true.
Like anything, the money needs to be spent wiser.
Milking the government has become a business in itself. Except a lot of these 'businesses' do not produce anything and reap profits far in excess what the market would normally produce. Part of the cost of doing that business is manipulating the purse strings (Congress) to allow it to happen.edit on 20-10-2012 by ABNARTY because: grammer
reply to post by ABNARTY
Milking the government has become a business in itself.
In late January 1967, Condon said in a lecture that he thought the government should not study UFOs because the subject was nonsense, adding, "but I'm not supposed to reach that conclusion for another year." One NICAP member resigned from NICAP in protest and Saunders confronted Condon to express his concern that NICAP's withdrawal would eliminate a valuable source of case files and produce damaging publicity.
Originally posted by 1loserel2
reply to post by MystikMushroom
The way the rich play games with the poor and middle class people, there's no such thing as trickle down anyway. It's called trickle in, and this phrase I may have just created for the sole purpose (although I won't swear to it maybe other people have used to jeer at the current economic system, I don't know) of this argument I'll believe, the phrase means this come money trickle into my wallet.
The top income tax rates have changed considerably since the end of World War II. Throughout
the late-1940s and 1950s, the top marginal tax rate was typically above 90%; today it is 35%. Additionally, the top capital gains tax rate was 25% in the 1950s and 1960s, 35% in the 1970s; today it is 15%. The average tax rate faced by the top 0.01% of taxpayers was above 40% until the mid-1980s; today it is below 25%. Tax rates affecting taxpayers at the top of the income distribution are currently at their lowest levels since the end of the second World War. The results of the analysis suggest that changes over the past 65 years in the top marginal tax rate and the top capital gains tax rate do not appear correlated with economic growth. The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment, and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie.
While these were perceived as positive efforts on Nike's part, the human rights campaign against the company have not ended. According to the Educating for Justice group, between 50 and 100 percent of Nike factories require more working hours than those permitted by the Code of Conduct. In 25 to 50 percent of factories, workers are required to work 7 days a week, and in the same percentage of factories, workers are still paid less than the local minimum wage.