mogulgangi
Getbig III
Gender: 
Posts: 944
fitness celebrity
|
 |
« on: November 12, 2012, 07:43:47 PM » |
|
It be more economical to make less than 250,000 ...no incentive to working harder than anyone..making over 250,000 is not a lot of money in modern day America..with a couple kids, housewife, college savings...your really making peanuts..seriously..why even do it...I would actually not mind Obama so much if he had a pro business mentality ..
|
|
|
|
|
mogulgangi
Getbig III
Gender:
Posts: 944
fitness celebrity
|
|
« Reply #1 on: November 12, 2012, 07:45:33 PM » |
|
I don't really understand the average liberal mind..don't you want to be wealthy?..to at least be near there..are you guys economically retarded..how are you going to save for retirement..
|
|
|
|
|
|
tbombz
|
 |
« Reply #2 on: November 12, 2012, 08:18:40 PM » |
|
I understand the whole disincentive thing but the fact remains that the more you earn the more you earn. It isn't better to make less than 250k. Its better to make more than 250k. The more you earn the more you earn. Period. Yes you get to keep less per dollar of what you earn, but your still earning more so it is rally insignificant
|
V
|
|
|
|
Straw Man
|
|
« Reply #3 on: November 12, 2012, 08:31:05 PM » |
|
I don't really understand the average liberal mind..don't you want to be wealthy?..to at least be near there..are you guys economically retarded..how are you going to save for retirement..
taxes have never prevented anyone from being wealthy are you a 333 gimmick ? |
|
|
|
|
|
tonymctones
|
|
« Reply #4 on: November 12, 2012, 08:32:52 PM » |
|
taxes have never prevented anyone from being wealthy
are you a 333 gimmick ?
neither did spending cuts and seeing as spending cuts are better at reducing the deficit than tax hikes I say we start there and let ppl keep more of their hard earned money. |
|
|
|
|
|
Straw Man
|
|
« Reply #5 on: November 12, 2012, 08:43:29 PM » |
|
neither did spending cuts and seeing as spending cuts are better at reducing the deficit than tax hikes I say we start there and let ppl keep more of their hard earned money.
uh ok, but then who ever said spending cuts prevented people from being rich or made them rich ? If you're serious about reducing the deficit then you have to look at both sides of the equation |
|
|
|
|
|
tonymctones
|
|
« Reply #6 on: November 12, 2012, 08:48:51 PM » |
|
uh ok, but then who ever said spending cuts prevented people from being rich or made them rich ?
If you're serious about reducing the deficit then you have to look at both sides of the equation
Ill agree with that but seeing as one side is much more effective at reducing the deficit shouldnt that be the side thats focused on? instead tax hikes on the "rich" is what politicians are crying for acting as if that is anything more than a drop in the bucket. cut spending first and then talk about taking hard earned money way from ppl who earned it. |
|
|
|
|
|
Straw Man
|
|
« Reply #7 on: November 12, 2012, 09:18:28 PM » |
|
Ill agree with that but seeing as one side is much more effective at reducing the deficit shouldnt that be the side thats focused on?
instead tax hikes on the "rich" is what politicians are crying for acting as if that is anything more than a drop in the bucket.
cut spending first and then talk about taking hard earned money way from ppl who earned it.
please elaborate |
|
|
|
|
|
AbrahamG
|
|
« Reply #8 on: November 12, 2012, 09:19:41 PM » |
|
It be more economical to make less than 250,000 ...no incentive to working harder than anyone..making over 250,000 is not a lot of money in modern day America..with a couple kids, housewife, college savings...your really making peanuts..seriously..why even do it...I would actually not mind Obama so much if he had a pro business mentality ..
It's only gay if you want it to be, sporto! |
|
|
|
|
|
whork
|
|
« Reply #9 on: November 13, 2012, 03:29:26 AM » |
|
Ill agree with that but seeing as one side is much more effective at reducing the deficit shouldnt that be the side thats focused on?
instead tax hikes on the "rich" is what politicians are crying for acting as if that is anything more than a drop in the bucket.
cut spending first and then talk about taking hard earned money way from ppl who earned it.
Cutting spending is gonna cost jobs you are ok with 20% unemployment? And what is that gonna do for the economy? |
|
|
|
|
mogulgangi
Getbig III
Gender:
Posts: 944
fitness celebrity
|
|
« Reply #10 on: November 13, 2012, 06:26:30 AM » |
|
taxes have never prevented anyone from being wealthy
are you a 333 gimmick ?
Ooh yea...France must be doing well...taxes for wealthy are up to 80 percent..and France is still bakrupt |
|
|
|
|
|
tonymctones
|
|
« Reply #11 on: November 13, 2012, 08:24:15 PM » |
|
please elaborate
create a basic income statement with revenue, COGS, Operating expenses and net income now decrease your operating expense by 20% and notice the difference in net income then create another I/S with the original operating expense and see how much you have to raise revenue to get to the same net income...you will notice that it is more than 20% I can draw that out if you dont seem to get it...although you wouldnt think you have to explain this to a person with a finance degree who also has owned his own finance company for years....... |
|
|
|
|
|
Straw Man
|
|
« Reply #12 on: November 13, 2012, 09:15:13 PM » |
|
create a basic income statement with revenue, COGS, Operating expenses and net income
now decrease your operating expense by 20% and notice the difference in net income
then create another I/S with the original operating expense and see how much you have to raise revenue to get to the same net income...you will notice that it is more than 20%
I can draw that out if you dont seem to get it...although you wouldnt think you have to explain this to a person with a finance degree who also has owned his own finance company for years.......
I get it that you have nothing to support your claim that a dollar of spending decrease is somehow magically "much more effective" at reducing the deficit then a dollar of revenue increase |
|
|
|
|
333386
Competitors
Getbig V
Posts: I am a geek!!
FUBO!
|
|
« Reply #13 on: November 13, 2012, 09:24:55 PM » |
|
Raises taxes why?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Straw Man
|
|
« Reply #14 on: November 13, 2012, 10:11:55 PM » |
|
Raises taxes why?
[/quote
hmmmmm
the debt
the deficit
shouldn't use be using your few remaining posts with more discretion ? |
|
|
|
|
333386
Competitors
Getbig V
Posts: I am a geek!!
FUBO!
|
|
« Reply #15 on: November 13, 2012, 10:14:44 PM » |
|
I guessed you missed the part of new spending o-thief is promising? Raises taxes why?
[/quote
hmmmmm
the debt
the deficit
shouldn't use be using your few remaining posts with more discretion ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Straw Man
|
|
« Reply #16 on: November 13, 2012, 10:16:55 PM » |
|
I guessed you missed the part of new spending o-thief is promising?
why don't you tell me about it |
|
|
|
|
|
AbrahamG
|
|
« Reply #17 on: November 14, 2012, 12:32:55 AM » |
|
why don't you tell me about it
I fixed this for you. Your welcome. |
|
|
|
|
magikusar
Time Out
Getbig IV
Posts: 2837
Team Ayn Rand
|
|
« Reply #18 on: November 14, 2012, 02:29:22 AM » |
|
logic and democrats are enemies
russia tried socialism
japan is not socialist, and japan wil soon be no1
sad
why do we copy failure?
|
|
|
|
|
|
sync pulse
|
|
« Reply #19 on: November 14, 2012, 02:49:36 AM » |
|
Japan has single payer universal healthcare...
|
|
|
|
|
|
tonymctones
|
|
« Reply #20 on: November 14, 2012, 05:09:10 AM » |
|
I get it that you have nothing to support your claim that a dollar of spending decrease is somehow magically "much more effective" at reducing the deficit then a dollar of revenue increase
do you agree that you have to raise revenue a greater % than if you cut operating expenses to have the same effect on the bottom line? |
|
|
|
|
|
whork
|
|
« Reply #21 on: November 14, 2012, 05:17:14 AM » |
|
do you agree that you have to raise revenue a greater % than if you cut operating expenses to have the same effect on the bottom line?
Cutting spending will cost jobs have you calculated with this in your math? |
|
|
|
|
|
tonymctones
|
|
« Reply #22 on: November 14, 2012, 06:23:10 AM » |
|
Cutting spending will cost jobs have you calculated with this in your math?
Are you really going to sit there and tell us that you think there isn't any waste in the govt budget that can be cut that wouldn't result in losing jobs? You think the govt is run so efficiently that cutting any amount would result in job losses? If you do you're a bigger idiot than I gave you credit for. By the way obamas tax plan is set to cause us to lose 700k+ jobs... |
|
|
|
|
333386
Competitors
Getbig V
Posts: I am a geek!!
FUBO!
|
|
« Reply #23 on: November 14, 2012, 06:56:43 AM » |
|
WH: Obama 'Does Not Believe That Reducing Deficits and Debt Are Values Unto Themselves'
CNSNews ^
Posted on Wednesday, November 14, 2012 7:51:17 AM by
(CNSNews.com) - Plugging a "truly balanced approach to our fiscal challenges," White House spokesman Jay Carney on Tuesday said President Obama does not view the issue of deficits and debt in a vacuum:
"He does not believe that reducing deficits and debt are values unto themselves. He believes that they are part of an approach that is driven by his number-one priority, which is economic growth and job creation."
Also on Tuesday, the Treasury Department announced a $120-billion deficit for October, the first month of fiscal 2013. That puts the nation on track to its fifth straight trillion-dollar-plus deficit.
________________________ _______________
|
|
|
|
|
|
whork
|
|
« Reply #24 on: November 14, 2012, 02:32:07 PM » |
|
Are you really going to sit there and tell us that you think there isn't any waste in the govt budget that can be cut that wouldn't result in losing jobs?
You think the govt is run so efficiently that cutting any amount would result in job losses?
If you do you're a bigger idiot than I gave you credit for.
By the way obamas tax plan is set to cause us to lose 700k+ jobs...
Are you gonna tell me you can cut spending without the loss of jobs? |
|
|
|
|
|
