Yeah, surprisingly 5% is within my capacity to imagine as well.
Wrong again, sport.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- So, Who'has read all the way through Obama's Budget?
So, Who'has read all the way through Obama's Budget?Follow
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
My experience, from speaking with many small business owners as part of my job, is that anyone who mentions that the Obama tax plan is going to hurt their business, is also a total *******.
Had one yesterday. Just HAD to get a dig in about the Obama tax plan. Then proceeded to say he hated the company I was representing, and didn't want me to waste my time, or anyone else to waste their time, since we probably wouldn't help his business anyway, and that we might as well just stop calling people because the Obama tax plan was going to ruin the country anyway.
Incidentally, he was one of those teensy businesses that the government is required to contract through or something. I think he was also upset that the jig is up on those kind of guaranteed contracts.
You know, he could have just said, "Nope, not interested" and left it at that.
Had one yesterday. Just HAD to get a dig in about the Obama tax plan. Then proceeded to say he hated the company I was representing, and didn't want me to waste my time, or anyone else to waste their time, since we probably wouldn't help his business anyway, and that we might as well just stop calling people because the Obama tax plan was going to ruin the country anyway.
Incidentally, he was one of those teensy businesses that the government is required to contract through or something. I think he was also upset that the jig is up on those kind of guaranteed contracts.
You know, he could have just said, "Nope, not interested" and left it at that.
bluffratt wrote:
Ash,
What business is it of yours what I choose to do with the money i've earned? It's completely f*cked that you think it's your business to tell me how I should spend my money, or that you think I have enough so the government can take more.
This entire issue is about freedom. Some believe freedom includes being able to do with their money what they will, provided it's not illegal.
What business is it of yours what I choose to do with the money i've earned? It's completely f*cked that you think it's your business to tell me how I should spend my money, or that you think I have enough so the government can take more.
This entire issue is about freedom. Some believe freedom includes being able to do with their money what they will, provided it's not illegal.
bluffratt wrote:
Ash,
What business is it of yours what I choose to do with the money i've earned? It's completely f*cked that you think it's your business to tell me how I should spend my money, or that you think I have enough so the government can take more.
This entire issue is about freedom. Some believe freedom includes being able to do with their money what they will, provided it's not illegal.
What business is it of yours what I choose to do with the money i've earned? It's completely f*cked that you think it's your business to tell me how I should spend my money, or that you think I have enough so the government can take more.
This entire issue is about freedom. Some believe freedom includes being able to do with their money what they will, provided it's not illegal.
Feel free to go ahead and blame Abraham Lincoln for that one. If it wasn't for the second favorite Republican, income tax wouldn't exist here.
bluffratt wrote:
It's completely f*cked that you think it's your business to tell me how I should spend my money, or that you think I have enough so the government can take more.
Rush was just going on about how awesome the Chinese are for not having a capital gains tax. Maybe you should give the consulate a jingle.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Every time I hear Rush's name now I automatically think "Limbaughs of Steele".
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Backing this up real quick:
No, he said that if you make over $250k, your taxes will increase.
Did you not read the paragraph I quoted?
Families making more than $250,000 will pay either the same or lower tax rates than they paid in the 1990s. Obama will ask the wealthiest 2% of families to give back a portion of the tax cuts they have received over the past eight years to ensure we are restoring fairness and returning to fiscal responsibility. But no family will pay higher tax rates than they would have paid in the 1990s. In fact, dividend rates would be 39 percent lower than what President Bush proposed in his 2001 tax cut.
What part of that statement do you interpret to mean: "We'll raise taxes on those people to whatever degree is necessary to pay for the massive spending I just signed"?
That's the promise. Yes. Want to place odds on that being true in a year?
Yes. That is what he said. Plus he put restrictions on how much those making over 250k would make (which you keep leaving out for some odd reason). Again. Do you think he'll keep that promise?
I say no. I think it's obvious he wont. Heck. It was obvious last summer when he made those promises. To some of us anyway...
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
These are not my words. These are direct campaign promises from Obama. It wasn't "We're going to raise taxes on anyone making over $250k. It was "everyone under 250 will get lower taxes and those over 250 will at worst pay the same rates they paid in the 1990s".
Did you not read the paragraph I quoted?
Quote:
Families making more than $250,000 will pay either the same or lower tax rates than they paid in the 1990s. Obama will ask the wealthiest 2% of families to give back a portion of the tax cuts they have received over the past eight years to ensure we are restoring fairness and returning to fiscal responsibility. But no family will pay higher tax rates than they would have paid in the 1990s. In fact, dividend rates would be 39 percent lower than what President Bush proposed in his 2001 tax cut.
What part of that statement do you interpret to mean: "We'll raise taxes on those people to whatever degree is necessary to pay for the massive spending I just signed"?
Quote:
If you make less than $250k, your taxes will not go up; in fact, most of you will get a tax cut.
That's the promise. Yes. Want to place odds on that being true in a year?
Quote:
Obama says no one making less than $250k would see a tax increase and that 95% of the families in the US would get a tax cut. Funny how that works, huh?
Yes. That is what he said. Plus he put restrictions on how much those making over 250k would make (which you keep leaving out for some odd reason). Again. Do you think he'll keep that promise?
I say no. I think it's obvious he wont. Heck. It was obvious last summer when he made those promises. To some of us anyway...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
I say no. I think it's obvious he wont. Heck. It was obvious last summer when he made those promises. To some of us anyway...
As per usual, you're going off on some tangent beyond what I was talking about. You made the claim that Obama promised a tax cut to everyone making under $250k. He did no such thing. That is what I was responding to, not Gbaji's Economic Predictions For The Future.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
I had hoped Bluffrat would acknowledge a minor fault that in no way hurts his overall point. Instead he moves on to the next person, hoping people will forget. I wonder if he can be pressured into noting it?
Edited, Mar 5th 2009 12:38pm by Allegory
Edited, Mar 5th 2009 12:38pm by Allegory
Allegory wrote:
Let's do a simple example. Here are the following prices I could set my product, and the amount of people willing to buy at that price.
$9 with 110 customers.
$10 with 100 customers.
$11 with 90 customers.
It's a standard demand curve.
$9 with 110 customers.
$10 with 100 customers.
$11 with 90 customers.
It's a standard demand curve.
Yes. But that curve works off an assumption that consumers have other choices. It's not a magical rule, it's based on relative costs in an economy. If taxes go up on an entire industry (or all sectors of business), everyone will raise prices to accommodate their bottom lines and the demand curve wont change.
That's *why* they don't just infinitely raise their prices. A business will want as large a profit margin as possible, but if profit margins are too high, someone in competition with you will realize they'll get a bigger share of the market by lowering prices. This keeps the prices at just high enough to get enough profit, but not much higher. Raising taxes across the board will raise prices across the board. If everyone raises their prices, the demand curve won't change much.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Well, it's never worked so far; but if anyone can wear him down, Allegory, I believe you're the man for the job.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Allegory wrote:
I had hoped Bluffrat would acknowledge a minor fault that in no way hurts his overall point. Instead he moves on to the next person, hoping people will forget. I wonder if he can be pressured into noting it?
You know that Bluffrat = Varus right?
This is why I've previously advocated for the board to cease responding to him: it's not interesting, nothing productive comes of it, and it's not even good brain exercise or debate practice - even the most simple, lazy argument defeats him.
Jophiel wrote:
You made the claim that Obama promised a tax cut to everyone making under $250k.
No. I claimed that he said that 80% of the people would receive a tax cut. I was wrong though. He actually promised that 95% of the people would get one.
And *that* wasn't really the point I was making either. I'm arguing that he will *have* to raise taxes more than he said he would. Who was promised how much of a tax cut is only part of the issue. He *also* promised not to raise taxes above 1990s levels.
There's simply no way for him to keep that promise. And before you say: "But the economy crashed", he continued to stump on these claims well after bailout talks were going on, so that just doesn't wash. Everyone except those wearing Obama-tinted glasses knew that this was a false promise.
EDIT: Lol. Let me predict that Joph will now cut and past where I said that Obama promised tax cuts to anyone under 250k and that taxes would only go up for folks making over 250k. Ignoring that the "under 250k" component is utterly irrelevant to the point I was making.
The point is that Obama's promised tax plan could not generate sufficient revenue to support his promised spending even *before* massive stimulus spending showed up on the scene. It's utterly absurd now.
Edited, Mar 5th 2009 10:52am by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
The point is that Obama's promised tax plan could not generate sufficient revenue to support his promised spending even *before* massive stimulus spending showed up on the scene. It's utterly absurd now.
Edited, Mar 5th 2009 10:52am by gbaji
Edited, Mar 5th 2009 10:52am by gbaji
What's ******* absurd is you railing on Obama for: "promised tax plan could not generate sufficient revenue to support his promised spending" when Bush did it for the last 7 years and you hailed him as ******* Moses leading us to the promise land.
trickybeck wrote:
Allegory wrote:
I had hoped Bluffrat would acknowledge a minor fault that in no way hurts his overall point. Instead he moves on to the next person, hoping people will forget. I wonder if he can be pressured into noting it?
You know that Bluffrat = Varus right?
This is why I've previously advocated for the board to cease responding to him: it's not interesting, nothing productive comes of it, and it's not even good brain exercise or debate practice - even the most simple, lazy argument defeats him.
There must be some way to make his repeated bannings stick. Maybe we can take up a collection to pay for whatver legal expense Alla incurs to get an injunction to prevent him from even visiting this site.
As it stands now, he's only banned for as long as it takes him to make a new SN
gbaji wrote:
Yes. But that curve works off an assumption that consumers have other choices. It's not a magical rule, it's based on relative costs in an economy. If taxes go up on an entire industry (or all sectors of business), everyone will raise prices to accommodate their bottom lines and the demand curve wont change.
I don't understand how your objections affects the example.
Here are the only two assumptions I am making:
1. EBT (earnings before taxes) is taxed.
2. There is a specific price level at which profit is maximized.
If I am currently selling my product at price X, and at this price I earn the maximum EBT, I have no reason to change my price if taxes are changed. If taxes are increased I WON'T increase my price. I'm already making the maximum profit I can. If I raise my price then my EBT will lower. There is no possible way I could offset the profit (Net Income) loss from taxes by increasing price.
Think of it this way. I'm am currently at the very top of a mountain. I can run north or I can run south, but either direction I will be going downwards because I am already at the top. If someone comes to me and removes a chunk of the mountain, making the whole thing smaller, I am not going to move from my spot. I'm still at the top of the mountain. The whole mountain may be smaller, but this is still the highest I can possibly be.
gbaji wrote:
Raising taxes across the board will raise prices across the board.
No. I can't make any more money by raising my price. I can only make less money by changing my price, because my price is already at the optimum level. Taxes don't change this.
Income taxes change ROE (investing), they don't change marketing.
Edited, Mar 5th 2009 1:10pm by Allegory
trickybeck wrote:
You know that Bluffrat = Varus right?
Actually I thought KinleyArdal was Varrus.
Kaelesh wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The point is that Obama's promised tax plan could not generate sufficient revenue to support his promised spending even *before* massive stimulus spending showed up on the scene. It's utterly absurd now.
Edited, Mar 5th 2009 10:52am by gbaji
Edited, Mar 5th 2009 10:52am by gbaji
What's @#%^ing absurd is you railing on Obama for: "promised tax plan could not generate sufficient revenue to support his promised spending" when Bush did it for the last 7 years and you hailed him as @#%^ing Moses leading us to the promise land.
Bush didn't win any elections by promising to spend money.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
bluffratt wrote:
tricksy,
Dows down another 200. What's sad is your inability to acknowledge that the market is reacting very badly to Obama's plan. Sh*t we have Obama begging people to keep investing. If that isn't panic I don't know what is. But you go right on thinking increasing the taxes of 90% of the employers in this country is a good thing. We all know no matter what happens you're just going to blame it on W.
Feel free not to respond to anything I've written.
Quote:
This even the most simple, lazy argument defeats him.
Dows down another 200. What's sad is your inability to acknowledge that the market is reacting very badly to Obama's plan. Sh*t we have Obama begging people to keep investing. If that isn't panic I don't know what is. But you go right on thinking increasing the taxes of 90% of the employers in this country is a good thing. We all know no matter what happens you're just going to blame it on W.
Feel free not to respond to anything I've written.
gbaji wrote:
Bush didn't win any elections by promising to spend money.
Yea, that's exactly why 70 million people voted for Obama.
AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:
So what was it reacting badly to when it dropped 700 points in a day back in the fall?
The idea of a black democrat in charge.
Allegory wrote:
No. I can't make any more money by raising my price. I can only make less money by changing my price, because my price is already at the optimum level. Taxes don't change this.
Raising taxes across the board changes the optimum level. The supply/demand curve is based on relative costs. Otherwise, no one would pay more than a nickel for a cup of coffee.
Also, you're not arguing against what I said. I didn't say the companies would raise the prices to "make more money". They'd raise prices to retain the same profit margin (profits after taxes in this case). If they were doing it purely to make more, you'd be right. But since they're simply adjusting to increased taxes, they will *all* do this more or less to the same degree, and it wont affect the demand function.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Kaelesh wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Bush didn't win any elections by promising to spend money.
Yea, that's exactly why 70 million people voted for Obama.
I'm sorry. Was that the actual point you were making? Or are you just changing the subject randomly because you were wrong?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Recent Visitors: 350
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (350)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- So, Who'has read all the way through Obama's Budget?
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC