Which proves my point that liberals love corporate welfare as much as head republicans.
Kind of my point, thank you.
Ah yes, the old Conservative "All rich people are god's gift, wealth creators and heroesAll poor people are sons of the devil and all make bad life choices, let's make them pay twice as much tax
I couldn't care less about your Conservative tears. Go sit on a building roof somewhere with your revolver and shoot poor people and then claim God told you to do it.
I don't see many conservatives cry tbh, I do see however liberals having anal prolapses and tearing up when they failed to defeat Scott Walker and the Koch Machine.Ah yes, the old Conservative "All rich people are god's gift, wealth creators and heroes
I couldn't care less about your Conservative tears. Go sit on a building roof somewhere with your revolver and shoot poor people and then claim God told you to do it.
It's rather simple if you really think about it. Do the rich in even these mixed economies get rich from ripping you off? Did Steve Jobs force you to buy his product at gunpoint for a load of money?Ah yes, the old Conservative "All rich people are god's gift, wealth creators and heroes
I couldn't care less about your Conservative tears. Go sit on a building roof somewhere with your revolver and shoot poor people and then claim God told you to do it.
If the economy is nothing but rich people ripping off others and exploiting them, does that mean you no longer purchase new items, you get everything second hand?
Hey Blizzardwizard, why does your idol George Soros have so many unpaid taxes?
who, investors and large inheritances?
very magnanimous. why is a flat tax the best solution?
Nice try, but not quite.
There is a big difference between acknowledging the reality of complex economies and wanting something kept to a minimum and "loving" it.
Any other strawmen arguments you want to put up?
Repugs are not blindly obstructing TPP as they have EVERYTHING Obama has supported since 2009.
When Repugs are FOR something, you know Human-Americans, the 99% are gonna get screwed, and the 1%/BigCorp will get even more wealthy.
TPP/TTIP is gonna screw Human-Americans and the 99% (or at very least, the 95%)
Because it doesn't penalize achievers. It treats varying classes more equal.
TTIP is the leech that sucks the money from the 99% and piles it all at the feet of the 1%. But as long as the 1% are happy, the repugs will keep smiling.
Elizabeth Warren’s Trade Deal Fears Confirmed: Canada Uses NAFTA to Challenge Volcker Rule
In her attacks on Obama’s pending trade deals, Elizabeth Warren has argued that could undermine US financial regulations like Dodd Frank. The Administration has taken to trying to dismiss Warren as not knowing what she was talking about. More skillful defenders of the traitorous trade deals took the tact of saying that Warren could in theory be right, but the odds of her fears playing out were so remote as to not be worth worrying about.
In a long, careful article in the Nation yesterday, George Zornick explains even with the limited information that we have now about the contents of proposed treaties like the TPP and its ugly European step-sister, the TTIP, Warren’s worries are valid. For instance:
Like with TPP, we don’t know all the details of TTIP yet, but advocates have many fears. One is that the Federal Reserve’s plan to impose separate liquidity requirements on foreign banks might be scotched…
And it’s not just Dodd-Frank: the leaked EU proposal for TTIP has a provision that new regulations first be “analyzed” to determine if they have an unacceptable impact on trade.
Americans for Financial Reform (AFR) worries that this could “impose a presumption that regulations must be judged on the basis of their trade impact rather than their effectiveness as public interest policies promoting financial stability.”
Keep in mind that by design, a substantial portion of Dodd Frank implementation was kicked down the road to allow lobbyists to have a second go at weakening it, with studies required before rules would be written. Significant portions of rulemaking have yet to be completed and would appear to be subject to the TTIP analysis requirement, giving the banking industry yet another change to gut legislation.
But an example of Warren’s concerns came out of left field yesterday, as reported by the Wall Street Journal:
A U.S. rule that prohibits banks from taking risky bets with their own money violates the North American Free-Trade Agreement because it bans U.S. banks from trading triple-A-rated Canadian government debt, Canada’s finance minister said Wednesday…
Canadian concerns about the Volcker rule’s treatment of sovereign debt aren’t new. In 2012, Canada joined European countries and Japan in raising concerns about the law’s reach..
Mr. [Joe] Oliver noted that the Volcker rule reflects concerns about the credit standing of some foreign securities. That concern doesn’t apply to Canada, he said, because Canada’s credit rating is better than the U.S. government and U.S. municipalities…
“I believe—with strong legal basis—that this rule violates the terms of the Nafta agreement,” Mr. Oliver told a securities industry audience in New York that included the U.S. ambassador to Canada, Bruce Heyman. “I hope the United States administration sees that changing the Volcker rule is in its own best interests and that of its biggest trading partner.”
Pretending that the only risk of holding foreign securities is credit risk is disingenuous. Foreign bond investors are also subject to currency and interest rate risks. Needless to say, the Treasury Department disagreed firmly with Oliver’s view.
One has to wonder, given that Canada has been unhappy about how the Volcker Rule applied to Canadian government debt since 2012, why the Nafta argument was hauled out at this juncture. Has the negotiation of the TPP led Canada to look at trade treaties more seriously as a way to get its way?
Regardless, the fact that Canada thinks it has a strong case for having its bonds exempted from the Volcker Rule looks to be a harbinger of the creative ways these pending, toxic trade deals could be deployed, given their far more sweeping provisions.
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/...+capitalism%29
The idea that a higher tax rate on income over a certain amount is a "penalty" is ludicrous. It's not a punishment. Everyone IS taxed equally. It's the income tiers that are taxed at an escalating rate.
Someone who makes $1 million has to work a lot less hard to make an additional $50K in a year than someone without that initial $1 million earned. It's not at all unfair to expect the first person to pay a higher rate on that $50K than someone who only makes $50K total in a year.
We disagree. For one, it reduces the incentive to even try to make that next $50k.
Where do you stop? 90%? Do you think a business owner who makes a percentage of his profits, will try to hard to make his company another $1,000,000 and add jobs if after his profits, they are $50,000 and he only keeps $5,000 of it? No incentive for him to try, for what to him is chump change.
Thank you for clarifying that you have absolutely no idea how the American economy works. Your numbers are so ridicululusly laughable and wildly inaccurate that I want to sodomize you for being such a moron.
Sometimes it takes an extreme example to make a point.
So, at what point do you draw the line, that nullifies my point?
Oh... I didn't think you for a got... Thanks for clarify that to all of us. Sorry, my women wouldn't like me screwing around with a guy.
Except taxes in general are the lowest they've been in years, and we've had this progressive tax system for decades on end. Heck, taxes were even more onerous back when the country GDP was growing immensely.
In other words, the idea that this tax system somehow reduces any incentive to grow the economy is only in your head and is demonstrably false.
You can certainly build a principled argument about the virtues of a flat tax. You could start by mentioning how complex the current system is and how a flat tax would dramatically reduce such complexity.
But that requires giving the topic some thought, and it's pretty clear that you have not done such a thing.
Why? Because you might only get to keep $33K of it? That's laughable. More money is more money.
Where do you stop? 90%?
I didn't realize our only options were flat tax or 90%.
Taxes are nothing but armed robbery. The robbers then give the money to their friends and claim to be helping the economy. The money is almost always wasted because in practice it's distributed according to how close someone is to power, not price signals. That's why when the government picks winner and losers the "winners" so often go out of business once the government gravy train runs out.
Then poor naive people say that the government couldn't exist without doing this.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
