Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
October 22, 2014, 07:19:57 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Who here objects to a 50% income tax rate on earnings above $1MIL  (Read 3854 times)
JBGRAY
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 2020



« Reply #175 on: November 12, 2012, 05:16:22 PM »

Government creates a framework for private enterprise and industry to thrive.  Public roads allow our customers to drive to our businesses.  Law Enforcement ensures the safety and security of our community(otherwise, we'd have to dole out money for private security).  Regulations allow businesses to operate within a set of rules to ensure overall safety of people and the environment.

Think of it as a tightrope walker.....its easy to just tip over either side and fall into the net.....its difficult to stay balanced.
Report to moderator   Logged
tu_holmes
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 15970


Robot


WWW
« Reply #176 on: November 12, 2012, 06:42:01 PM »

I'm assuming your trolling, just because someone can't create something doesn't mean they can't destroy it.

Of course that was a troll.

But seriously. No one hires more or less people than it takes to do a job.

End of story.
Report to moderator   Logged
mogulgangi
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 1088


fitness celebrity


« Reply #177 on: November 12, 2012, 06:45:50 PM »

Government creates a framework for private enterprise and industry to thrive.  Public roads allow our customers to drive to our businesses.  Law Enforcement ensures the safety and security of our community(otherwise, we'd have to dole out money for private security).  Regulations allow businesses to operate within a set of rules to ensure overall safety of people and the environment.

Think of it as a tightrope walker.....its easy to just tip over either side and fall into the net.....its difficult to stay balanced.


What you were trying to say is..."you didn't build that"
Report to moderator   Logged
tonymctones
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 25260



« Reply #178 on: November 12, 2012, 06:56:46 PM »

Of course that was a troll.

But seriously. No one hires more or less people than it takes to do a job.

End of story.
jobs are taken on or passed based on the expected profit.

Expected profit is effected by costs

govt effects costs of business

therefor govt has an effect on what jobs are taken and what jobs are passed.
Report to moderator   Logged
Mr. Magoo
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9794


THE most mistaken identity on getbig


« Reply #179 on: November 12, 2012, 06:59:50 PM »

jobs are taken on or passed based on the expected profit.

Expected profit is effected by costs

govt effects costs of business

therefor govt has an effect on what jobs are taken and what jobs are passed.

Completely and always?
Report to moderator   Logged
tonymctones
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 25260



« Reply #180 on: November 12, 2012, 07:01:32 PM »

Completely and always?
im unsure of what youre asking, you just highlighted "based on" are you asking if they completely and aways base jobs to take on expected profits?

or are you asking if they based on completely and always?

if its the second I need clarification Wink
Report to moderator   Logged
Mr. Magoo
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9794


THE most mistaken identity on getbig


« Reply #181 on: November 12, 2012, 07:02:50 PM »

im unsure of what youre asking, you just highlighted "based on" are you asking if they completely and aways base jobs to take on expected profits?

or are you asking if they based on completely and always?

if its the second I need clarification Wink

it's the first. I've become lazy in typing my posts  Grin

No hidden debate motive, just curious what you think.
Report to moderator   Logged
tonymctones
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 25260



« Reply #182 on: November 12, 2012, 07:08:09 PM »

it's the first. I've become lazy in typing my posts  Grin

No hidden debate motive, just curious what you think.
hahaha well I cant speak in absolutes but in a logical business yea.

Always exceptions to the rules for example a lot of times companies will take on jobs that they know they are going to lose money on to get other jobs they will be able to make enough profit on to cover the loss of the first job.

Would you take a job in which it cost you more in gas to get to the job then you were making at the job?

its pretty common sense, if youre going to lose money in the long run then dont do it.

Report to moderator   Logged
tbombz
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 19161


Psalms 150


« Reply #183 on: November 12, 2012, 07:13:57 PM »

Tony obamacare didn't receive republican votes because their priorit was to make obama a one term president.  The majorit of them had openly supported the individual mandate up intill they voted against it.  http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/06/25/120625fa_fact_klein&sa=U&ei=RquhUNDqB8XYyAG0xICQAQ&ved=0CBoQFjAA&sig2=0ETJvxvhwlVWf5fntTsJrQ&usg=AFQjCNG0tEQMGE4WYPozYSFH6G0438tvmQ
Report to moderator   Logged
tonymctones
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 25260



« Reply #184 on: November 12, 2012, 07:17:31 PM »

Tony obamacare didn't receive republican votes because their priorit was to make obama a one term president.  The majorit of them had openly supported the individual mandate up intill they voted against it.  http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/06/25/120625fa_fact_klein&sa=U&ei=RquhUNDqB8XYyAG0xICQAQ&ved=0CBoQFjAA&sig2=0ETJvxvhwlVWf5fntTsJrQ&usg=AFQjCNG0tEQMGE4WYPozYSFH6G0438tvmQ
no it was b/c the majority of the country was against the legislation and still are...

the majority of their constituents didnt want this horrible piece of legislation passed thats why they didnt vote for it.

Do you not remember all the town halls were ppl were telling their reps that if they voted for it they were going to get voted out of office?

you cannot be that delusional dizzle
Report to moderator   Logged
tbombz
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 19161


Psalms 150


« Reply #185 on: November 12, 2012, 07:24:48 PM »


As long as you understand that the majority of republicans were in support of the plan up intill 2008 I really don't care about the reason why they decided to vote against it
Report to moderator   Logged
tonymctones
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 25260



« Reply #186 on: November 12, 2012, 07:44:04 PM »

As long as you understand that the majority of republicans were in support of the plan up intill 2008 I really don't care about the reason why they decided to vote against it
I agree that many were in support of a similar plan but if thats what youre basing your opinion on youre being niave.

politicians change stances obama went from an all out hand gun ban to not supporting a new assault weapon ban to wanting to institute a new assault weapon ban.

He went from supporting a single payer to not supporting a single pay to saying he would if he could...

The majority of the country didnt want this shitty bill passed and they let their politicians know they didnt.

Thats why the reps didnt vote for it
Report to moderator   Logged
avxo
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 4089


You've given me multiple traumatic brain injuries!


« Reply #187 on: November 12, 2012, 07:45:32 PM »

no it was b/c the majority of the country was against the legislation and still are...

Nonsense. It was a purely political move, which they made without examing the legislation in question and judging it on its merits. Pay attention: I'm not saying that they would have discovered it was a worthwhile piece of legislation if they had examined it; they wouldn't have. But the stance of the Republicans on this - and every other issue that came before Congress during the Obama Administration - was purely partisan.


the majority of their constituents didnt want this horrible piece of legislation passed thats why they didnt vote for it.

Right, because Members of Congress always vote exactly the way their constituents would vote... Roll Eyes But let's assume that they do - that they just reflect the will of their constituents at any given point in time. So what? It's hardly surprising that a district that elected a Republican congressman would be populated with Republicans who would, more likely than not, be opposed to Obamacare.


Do you not remember all the town halls were ppl were telling their reps that if they voted for it they were going to get voted out of office?

Excluding those are are in the center, who are "in play" so to speak, the parties have a more or less even split of the vote, each from their respective ends of the spectrum; For every one such person there was another person saying "if you don't vote for it, you're going to get voted out of office."
Report to moderator   Logged
tbombz
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 19161


Psalms 150


« Reply #188 on: November 12, 2012, 07:53:46 PM »

They changed their minds because doong so was politically wise. They knew that attacking obamas reform would get them votes and they helped to increase public outcry against it by coming up with all sorts of propaganda about government takeover of healthcare socialized medicine death panels etc when none of it was true.  TheFact remains that obamacare was a compromise from the single payer system liberals wanted. The obamacare was designed by repoblicams and had their support up intill obama decided to use it
Report to moderator   Logged
AbrahamG
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 2178

The vagina is my third favorite hole.


« Reply #189 on: November 12, 2012, 07:54:05 PM »

same will happen if we raise taxes, all things equal spending cuts are more effective at reducing the bottom line than tax hikes though.

More jobs were created under Clinton with that astronomical 3% tax hike.
Report to moderator   Logged
tonymctones
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 25260



« Reply #190 on: November 12, 2012, 07:55:37 PM »

Nonsense. It was a purely political move, which they made without examing the legislation in question and judging it on its merits. Pay attention: I'm not saying that they would have discovered it was a worthwhile piece of legislation if they had examined it; they wouldn't have. But the stance of the Republicans on this - and every other issue that came before Congress during the Obama Administration - was purely partisan.


Right, because Members of Congress always vote exactly the way their constituents would vote... Roll Eyes But let's assume that they do - that they just reflect the will of their constituents at any given point in time. So what? It's hardly surprising that a district that elected a Republican congressman would be populated with Republicans who would, more likely than not, be opposed to Obamacare.


Excluding those are are in the center, who are "in play" so to speak, the parties have a more or less even split of the vote, each from their respective ends of the spectrum; For every one such person there was another person saying "if you don't vote for it, you're going to get voted out of office."

maybe you dont follow politics very close but the amount of uproar over obama care was unprecedented.

If you dont think the constituents of these politicians didnt want obamacare passed how do you explain the blood bath the dems took in 2010?

Report to moderator   Logged
Grape Ape
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7098


Alphamod / Y board approved


« Reply #191 on: November 12, 2012, 07:56:47 PM »

More jobs were created under Clinton with that astronomical 3% tax hike.

And why was that, do you think?
Report to moderator   Logged

Y
tu_holmes
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 15970


Robot


WWW
« Reply #192 on: November 12, 2012, 07:57:40 PM »

All internet based.

Who gives a shit why.

Every generation has their own reason. That's called life.

There will always be something.
Report to moderator   Logged
tonymctones
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 25260



« Reply #193 on: November 12, 2012, 07:57:50 PM »

More jobs were created under Clinton with that astronomical 3% tax hike.
first the economy was already in a good place, is the economy in a good place now?

second I dont know why you quoted me as my post didnt have anything to do with job creation but debt reduction and its a proven fact that spending cuts reduce debt faster than tax hikes.

sorry if that offends you abraham but facts are facts
Report to moderator   Logged
avxo
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 4089


You've given me multiple traumatic brain injuries!


« Reply #194 on: November 12, 2012, 07:58:49 PM »

More jobs were created under Clinton with that astronomical 3% tax hike.

Perhaps but what you may not know is that correlation does not imply causation... It's not impossible that the economy thrived under Clinton despite tax hikes; after all, the economy doesn't only accept and react to one single input. Besides, even if higher taxes did not have any direct effect on the economy, there are other questions to consider, including whether it's moral to take more money from people at the point of the proverbial gun.
Report to moderator   Logged
Grape Ape
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7098


Alphamod / Y board approved


« Reply #195 on: November 12, 2012, 07:59:05 PM »

Of course that was a troll.

But seriously. No one hires more or less people than it takes to do a job.

End of story.

Actually, in my line of work, we staff to expected demand plus current work..  Walking the fine line between having enough to meet current requirements with enough, but not too much on the beach to handle burst work has huge margin impacts.
Report to moderator   Logged

Y
tbombz
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 19161


Psalms 150


« Reply #196 on: November 12, 2012, 07:59:48 PM »

Doesn't mean tax increases shouldn't be part of the debt reduction
Report to moderator   Logged
tonymctones
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 25260



« Reply #197 on: November 12, 2012, 08:00:05 PM »

Perhaps but what you may not know is that correlation does not imply causation... It's not impossible that the economy thrived under Clinton despite tax hikes; after all, the economy doesn't only accept and react to one single input. Besides, even if higher taxes did not have any direct effect on the economy, there are other questions to consider, including whether it's moral to take more money from people at the point of the proverbial gun.
good points

especially on the moral aspect
Report to moderator   Logged
Grape Ape
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7098


Alphamod / Y board approved


« Reply #198 on: November 12, 2012, 08:01:01 PM »

Who gives a shit why.

Every generation has their own reason. That's called life.

There will always be something.

It's totally relevant in this case.   He's using the Clinton era to cite tax increases don't hurt job growth, but there's some serious context around that.
Report to moderator   Logged

Y
tonymctones
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 25260



« Reply #199 on: November 12, 2012, 08:01:12 PM »

Doesn't mean tax increases shouldn't be part of the debt reduction
never said it shouldnt be as a last ditch effort.

Shouldnt it be a priority to get your fiscal house in order before you go out and take money from others?
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!