The best in arts & entertainment, news, pop culture, and your mom since 2002.

[Total: 21    Average: 3.3/5]
152 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 6104
Rating: 3.3
Category:
Date: 03/13/13 03:41 PM

152 Responses to Here`s Why You Can Stop Trying To Get Richer

  1. Profile photo of CaptKangaroo
    CaptKangaroo Male 50-59
    2343 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 3:41 pm
    Link: Here`s Why You Can Stop Trying To Get Richer - Passionate, hateful comments in 3...2...1...
  2. Profile photo of SmagBoy1
    SmagBoy1 Male 40-49
    4432 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 3:49 pm
    Exactly. I know that this`ll be torn to shreds. That`s fine. I don`t care. Sometimes truth is just truth.
  3. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36835 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 3:55 pm

    Nothing new. This has happened before. {Large poor population w/ a few ubber-rich}
    It lead to the Russian Revolution, the French Revolution and the Shaw of Iran being thrown out.

    I wonder if Americans have the balls to do what is necessary?
    I doubt it.
  4. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 4:28 pm
    Then they`ll just move all their money into Swiss bank accounts, and deliberately devalue their assets. Then who`ll become the top 2%? Seriously, is it THAT hard to believe that there are laws that have given certain entities advantages they otherwise wouldn`t enjoy? Why can`t we just repeal those first?
  5. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15841 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 4:36 pm
    Well, it looks like the liberal munchkin has gone full-blown communist. It never occurs to him that a "wealth tax" would result in the complete dismantling of our means of production so it could be divvied up among the poor.

    If you want to spend your life as a subsistence farmer plowing your own 40 acres with a mule, by all means, spread the wealth around. However, if you want something better, remember, it takes a rich bastard to build a tractor factory.
  6. Profile photo of intrigid
    intrigid Male 18-29
    914 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 4:41 pm
    What the hell do idiots like this think is going to happen when interest rates rise?

    American`s aren`t living beyond their means? Holy f*ck! How can anyone be so ignorant?
  7. Profile photo of SmagBoy1
    SmagBoy1 Male 40-49
    4432 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 4:42 pm
    Yeah, right. Clearly, a 3% wealth tax would absolutely destroy the weakling super wealthy and cause the poor, poor bastards to stop investing (what little they currently do) in our country. Whatever. When 30 people control more wealth than 150 million, and they`re ostensibly citizens of the same country and economy, there is NO excuse. None.
  8. Profile photo of EgalM
    EgalM Male 30-39
    1707 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 4:44 pm
    If I had to guess, and I do, I`d think the issue is the dividing of groups and treating them differently. Instead try treating everyone like they were equals regardless of wealth. Why do welfare cases get money back at tax time, when all year long they are given others taxes. I don`t buy the excuse that they have to treat the rich better or they will just leave. There is no way all business`s are going to pack up and just leave the country.

    I guess at this because I`m Canadian and treating the classes more equally seems to work ok for us, granted we are much smaller population.
  9. Profile photo of EgalM
    EgalM Male 30-39
    1707 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 4:46 pm
    @intrigid , Me thinks you just answered your own question by proving the point.
  10. Profile photo of QueenZira
    QueenZira Female 18-29
    2228 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 4:46 pm
    Once upon a time the tax on the wealthiest was much higher and everyone was better off for it.

    I`ve said it before and I`ll say it again, I simply cannot understand a movement that wants to go back socially to the 1950s, but not economically...
  11. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33110 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 4:52 pm
    2:35 Is there a single Democrat who understands the difference between "income" and "wealth"?
    He says: TAX THE WEALTH? "tax the vast accumulations of wealth"?? That means take things people OWN! Just... take it away!
    YOU want the government to decide who`s "allowed to own" what? Look how well that worked for Lenin, Stalin, Mao & etc...

    Ghod, this guy spins like a top!
    Just STEAL 2% of what other people already own! It won`t hurt you! They won`t take their "capital" and flee the country (thus taking jobs and ruining the economy) heck no!

    70 Billion? that`s LESS than the sequester! It`s not even 7% of the DEFICIT! Nevermind the 16 trillion dollar DEBT.

    "No justification..." Except that dumb old US Constitution... (and Bill of Rights).

    Idiot.
  12. Profile photo of bliznik
    bliznik Male 30-39
    867 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 4:56 pm
    Hmm, I`m guessing that the top 1% don`t watch youtube videos. But they DO talk to Senators and Representatives. While the bottom 99% watch youtube videos, but can`t be bothered to EVER write a letter to a Senator or Representative.
  13. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33110 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 5:00 pm
    @SmagBoy: You`d be OK with the US Goverment taking 3% of EVERYTHING YOU OWN, EVERY YEAR, FOREVER?
    How long until HALF of your "wealth" is stolen from you?

    You really imagine that rich folks will just "sit there and take it"? Or rather have it taken from them...

    I`d think the issue is the dividing of groups and treating them differently.
    @EgalM: This is something you support? Because it`s exactly what R.Reich is saying: Certain Americans have NO RIGHT to own what they own, and the Government should take it away from them WITHOUT "due process". Period.

    @QueenZira: The 50`s had enough "loopholes" to drive a dump-truck FULL of money through, and that`s exactly what "the rich" did. Ronald Reagan closed many loopholes, LOWERED ALL the taxes and `voila`! IRS revenues went... UP!
  14. Profile photo of intrigid
    intrigid Male 18-29
    914 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 5:03 pm
    "Once upon a time the tax on the wealthiest was much higher and everyone was better off for it."

    No it wasn`t. The top tax rate was 91% which NOBODY PAID because of deductions and tax loopholes. Since then, tax rates were slashed, but certain deductibilities were also eliminated, resulting in taxes on income being higher overall. In the era of 91% top marginal tax rates, actual taxes paid were LOWER than they are today.
  15. Profile photo of QueenZira
    QueenZira Female 18-29
    2228 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 5:12 pm
    Conservatives have to get over their misidentification of taxation with stealing. Taxation is giving back your due to the society that allowed you to get as far as you have, taxes are the currency with which we buy civilization. And all governments do it, regardless of how liberal or conservative they are.

    Also, judging by other comments herein, they have to learn what the phuck Communism actually is, first off...

    Then they have to explain why 1950s America was such an economic powerhouse and there were no whiny rich Randian babies threatening to take their ball and go home because their egos were not sufficiently flattered.

    There are probably other things they need to do which will become more apparent as this thread ages...

  16. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33110 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 5:19 pm
    @QueenZira: Taking 3% of your INCOME is a "tax" ok?
    Talking 3% of ALL YOUR AFTER-TAX POSESSIONS is "stealing". Or "redistribution of wealth" as Obama said!
    Get it? WEALTH is what "communism" redistributes, NOT INCOME.

    We need lessons? pft!

    The "top rate" in the 50`s was 91%, but the ACTAUL RATE was much lower than it is today! THAT is why the USA was an "economic powerhouse" back then, LOWER (actual) TAXES!
  17. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 5:20 pm
    Reich is a Clinton era ideologue who`s a socialist at heart. This "Tax The Rich", class warfare, more government scheme is sourced straight from Carl Marx.
  18. Profile photo of QueenZira
    QueenZira Female 18-29
    2228 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 5:27 pm
    If wealth is what Communism redistributes than I guess all the wealth being redistributed to the top 1% over the past 30 yrs is Communism. See what I did there? Basic Political Science classes wouldn`t go amiss for Red `Merica that`s for sure.

    I don`t buy the "loopholes" bit because it`s completely topsy turvy to reality. One does not lose weight by eating more cake, it doesn`t work that way. We have the lowest tax rates now since the Truman administration and we`re not growing or generating more GDP, all we`re doing is situating more wealth in the hands of the elite. And you don`t run a society from the top down.

  19. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 5:28 pm
    Conservatives have to get over their misidentification of taxation with stealing.

    In both cases it`s money being taken by force. Eventually taxation can get to a point where it`s simply stealing. It goes to public goods no one needs or wants (see Solyndra) or it just goes to line the government`s pockets. In the case of the poor money is being stolen from them so Grandma can get her free chemo. Something which surprisingly neocons don`t seem to complain that much about, or when they do they`re absolutely incoherent about it.
  20. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3511 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 5:28 pm
    Firstly, if you make minimum wage your already part of the top 12% on earth.
    Raising the minimum wage doesn`t help, yes it forces higher wages, but the amount of jobs that offer them decreases and it causes "dead weight loss." This is why you couldn`t raise minimum wage to a million and everyone be rich.

    Taxing the super wealthy for any dept may seem like a great idea, but they won`t just give you their money. They will move their money off shore or just move away all together, like in France. Not to mention the obvious fact that this is a short term solution for a long term problem. There is also an old economic adage "people pay all taxes." Tax a corporation or CEO and it ultimately passed to the consumer.
  21. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 5:29 pm
    He is talking utter balls, for a simple reason. He ignores the fact that much of the "growth" he claims can pay for this is in government spending already. He is double counting, that is clearly not available for further government spending.

    The inane thesis that the rich have made these vast gains and could pay for ridiculous government entitlements is shown to be false by simply pointing out that if you took all the money from the top 1% it would not even pay for government spending for 2 years, let alone start to pay down US$16.7 trillion in debt that is currently rising by a trillion a year, let alone make a serious hole in under-funded off-balance-sheet liabilities (of the type that had Enron execs condemned and even convicted, yet gets idiot statist politicians re-elected on both sides of the political "divide").

    So you can see that a simple gross error check (that should be made for any calculation) proves him wrong.
  22. Profile photo of Daegog
    Daegog Male 30-39
    1371 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 5:30 pm
    How the rich have convinced conservatives to fight for them so strongly is mind blowing to me.

    Its the dream that they will one day be uber rich and dont want to pay those higher taxes is the only thing i can come up with.

    conservatives = delusional greedy bastards
  23. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 5:32 pm
    QueenZira

    "Conservatives have to get over their misidentification of taxation with stealing."

    No, socialists have to get over their misidentification of tax reduction as giving money away.

    The money belongs to the people. It is handed over under threat of force and on sufferance to pay for the business of government. When government starts spending money on anything beyond the legitimate business of government then that is stealing.
  24. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3511 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 5:35 pm
    When a tax is applied, economist are taught to think of it as a penalty. It reduces the quantity of goods and increases the price, and again forces a dead weight loss.
  25. Profile photo of QueenZira
    QueenZira Female 18-29
    2228 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 5:38 pm
    Money is not being taken "by force", there`s no one with torches and pitchforks demanding money. Civil law stipulates you pay back in proportion to what you make, fair is fair.

    The only time money is taken from the poor is when we coddle the rich and say "You`re too good to do what we mandate for everybody else and pay your fair share, we`ll balance the budget on the Middle class and poor`s backs for you." Ignoring the fact that you can`t get blood from a turnip.

    Oh and granny`s chemo isn`t free, in fact health care costs are the main driver of American debt. If we went to a Single Payer system (Like Britain`s NHS) we would eliminate a lot of our debt, but you can`t convince Red `Merica about that.
  26. Profile photo of QueenZira
    QueenZira Female 18-29
    2228 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 5:43 pm
    Oh and Conservatives also have to learn the difference between what Socialism is and what Communism is, because they are not the same thing.

    Simple reference tool, Sweden= Socialist, Soviet Russia= Communist. No one ever in the history of forever has ever said, "Oh dear GAWD the Swedes are coming to KILL US ALL!" That sentence is usually applied to Russia.

    Know the difference. It could save your life.
  27. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3511 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 5:46 pm
    @QueenZira: This is not an emotional issue where people are "too good." It`s an economic issue, where if we did what you describe, we would decrease the amount of trade and business and ultimately revenue produced for the Government.
  28. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 5:47 pm
    QueenZira: "...there`s no one with torches and pitchforks demanding money."

    The IRS is more insidious than that actually, because you can see an unruly mob coming your way and at least have a few moments to prepare. the IRS seizes bank accounts, garnishes wages, seizes property and more.

    Also, you are considered guilty, in tax court, and have to prove your innocence. Even if you are innocent, getting back your money, property, lost wages, and the rest of your life is not only difficult, it`s expensive, requires specialized attorneys and a lot of time.

    On top of all that, even if the IRS wrongfully seized your assets, you can`t sue them for the expenses of getting it all back, or the damage they do to your credit or business.
  29. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 5:55 pm
    Oh and granny`s chemo isn`t free, in fact health care costs are the main driver of American debt.

    To granny it is, because Uncle Sam picking up the tab at everyone else`s expense. Letting govt decide how long people wait for care will not improve the system overall.
  30. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 5:59 pm
    The only time money is taken from the poor is when we coddle the rich and say...

    So let`s erase the entire tax code. You pay taxes in accordance to the brackets and nothing else.
  31. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 5:59 pm
    No exceptions.
  32. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3511 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 5:59 pm
    I hate to also bring up the laffer curve, because dems. hate it so much. But it is a fixture in every modern working economy and taught in every economic textbook. Now I will agree it is not a perfect bell curve yet A 1996 study by Y. Hsing of the United States economy between 1959 and 1991 placed the revenue-maximizing average federal tax rate between 32.67% and 35.21%. Which is what the top 1% currently pay not including sales and corporate taxes.
  33. Profile photo of QueenZira
    QueenZira Female 18-29
    2228 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 6:02 pm
    Medicare and Medicaid are popular programs and here`s the kicker, *they work*. There is no "rationing" or any of that bulls#it. It simply works.

    And the NHS works in Britain too, well I might add. I once read where a Brit woman came here and saw one those "Please Donate" cups on the counter of a diner for a little girl who had brain cancer. She was shocked to learn that we even had to do such a thing, raise money from generous strangers so a little girl could have the opportunity to live, or otherwise she would go w/o health care. She thought it was barbaric.

    And you know something, she was absolutely right.
  34. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3511 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 6:04 pm
    I`m sorry but taxation and revenues are a defined mathematical sum, not a generalized feeling of quality like fairness. I understand the argument but it isn`t reasonable, it would hurt more people than it helped.
  35. Profile photo of paperduck
    paperduck Male 18-29
    1745 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 6:19 pm
    poor and middle class get fuxored either way. if you raise taxes on the ultra rich by 2%, they raise prices of poo they make by 2% and pass the cost back to us.
  36. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33110 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 7:03 pm
    there`s no one with torches and pitchforks demanding money.
    @QZ: No, there`s lawyers, police with handcuffs and Federal Prisons...

    I guess all the wealth being redistributed to the top 1% over the past 30 yrs is...
    Nooo, the income was redistributed, the WEALTH accumulated AFTER that. DUH! Now WHY do the "rich" earn more income than they used to? THAT is another question, but trillions of $$ in gov`t HANDOUTS are a fine place to start looking.
    And what did Obama do? Handed out more "pork" than ever before! So "blame the Republicans" all you like, it`s the Dems who`ve been doing it for quite a while now.

    The only time money is taken from the poor is...
    ...is when ANY TAX goes up!
    Tax the gasoline? The poor pay MORE (proportionally) than the "rich". ANY TAX will hurt the poor, it`s a fact.

  37. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 7:17 pm
    @QueenZira

    So we don`t have a spending problem? Let`s consider some cumulative, inflation-adjusted budget deficits over different timespans:

    1985-2008 (24 Total Years): $6.0t deficit
    2009-2013 (5 Total Years): $6.2t deficit

    But no, your conjecture is probably, like, so totally right.

    When was the last serious budget surplus? Between 1998-2001, when two of the three governmental entities were Republican. Yep - read that again; in the last 40+ years, the only budget surplus was between 1998-2001 and was headed by Republicans.

    @randomxnp

    If ever you find yourself in Wisconsin, I`d gladly introduce you to some famed Wisconsin beer. Why, you ask? Because up until reading your posts, I had absolutely zero hope for Europe.
  38. Profile photo of markust123
    markust123 Male 40-49
    3922 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 7:19 pm
    I love how opinion media has brainwashed conservatives into thinking that liberals hate the rich. The richest guy I know is a liberal (net worth $19 Million). I have a huge drive to become independently wealthy. Being rich or wanting to be rich is not a partisan quality. The majority of Liberals do not hate the rich. Same as the majority of conservatives do not hate the poor.
  39. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3511 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 7:25 pm
    "Now WHY do the "rich" earn more income than they used to?"

    The reason the rich become richer during times of economic stress is due to many businesses going out of business and the slack is taken up by bigger more durable companies. When local produce shops close their doors, companies like Walmart takes up the slack. On a global scale this can be exponential. Combine this with market instability and the wealthier companies and people prefer to have more liquid funds and less investitures increasing personal wealth but limiting personal investment. Not saying this is soley it, yet things like government forcing business to purchase health insurance raise the cost of business. Smaller mom and pop shops often are the first fall when operating cost increase. As they do larger corporations make a profit due to their ability to fill the void left by the smaller companies closing.
  40. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15841 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 7:51 pm
    SmegmaBoy, of that 150 million, over half of them have a NEGATIVE net worth, i.e., they owe more than they own. I wouldn`t count on them to invest in anything they can`t drive or f***.
  41. Profile photo of klaxor
    klaxor Male 18-29
    646 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 7:54 pm
    "if you raise taxes on the ultra rich by 2%, they raise prices of poo they make by 2% and pass the cost back to us."

    - Except it`s not the ultra rich who actually make stuff. I doubt most of them have such direct control of a company that they can just raise the price w/o consulting shareholders. Don`t let them fool you, you don`t have to get screwed for their sake.
  42. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3511 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 8:02 pm
    @klaxor: they would need to consult the major shareholders but so long as the market will bare the price and the corperation is expecting profit, the shareholders have an economic incentive to approve. People often do not enter the stockmarket to exact social justice.

    As I said before the old economic adage "people pay all taxes" means all tax is passed to the consumer. To do otherwise is altruistic, yet uneconomic.
  43. Profile photo of klaxor
    klaxor Male 18-29
    646 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 8:34 pm
    @richanddead - It`s called a free market. If the CEO of a publicly shared company decides to raise the price of his product, you can bet that there`s a CEO at another company willing to take a slightly lower paycheck in order to keep his prices low, and run the other guy out of business.

    As we all know, corporations are all about profit at the expense of the workers... all the workers, it`s just that the board of directors likes to put all of that weight on their employees, but they can`t just take it upon themselves to raises prices without a better excuse than "they raised my taxes and I want to make more money" to the shareholders.
  44. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 8:43 pm
    Where were all these passionate hateful comments again?
  45. Profile photo of klaxor
    klaxor Male 18-29
    646 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 8:48 pm
    Also, the laffer curve is based on the fact that if you raise taxes too high, people will find a way to not pay them ( which is what they`re doing right now).

    The other graph you show is based on taxing production/goods, not wages or investment.
  46. Profile photo of klaxor
    klaxor Male 18-29
    646 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 8:48 pm
    F*UCK YOU Cajun247!!!!!!

    whew.... that was a close one
  47. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3511 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 8:58 pm
    @klaxor: You seem very passionate about what you are saying but I must disagree. If you read what I said I add the par "so long as the market will bare the price." This means that the increase in price does not adversely effect the company and yes a CEO will take a temporary pay cut to monopolize his industry, but if he his doing it for altruistic reasons and not an economic strategy, the shareholders will usually replace the CEO, almost all major corporations have contract clauses to this effect. The purpose of a business is to make a profit and the shareholders are the ones who have invested their money to make it happen. If they feel someone is going against their interests they can sell their stocks and invest elsewhere, bankrupting the company. Companies are indifferent to their workers I agree, but a company that routinely absorbs all costs, is a company bound for failure and that helps no one. That why its the consumer not the workers who often feel the tax.
  48. Profile photo of jamie76
    jamie76 Male 30-39
    2345 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 9:03 pm
    Dear Republicans

    you and I know this is primarily caused by your party.

    you need to ask yourselves why you continue to follow a party that does not want to do crap to help you ever get more than you have while they at the top, rake in the dough.

    you are sheep.
  49. Profile photo of klaxor
    klaxor Male 18-29
    646 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 9:06 pm
    @richanddead - like I said, you`re talking about a tax on production/goods.

    How is taxing a CEO a cost to the company... it`s a cost to the CEO.
  50. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3511 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 9:07 pm
    @klaxor: The Laffer curve represents that increasing tax rates beyond a certain point will be counterproductive for raising further tax revenue. Not because people will hide money after a certain point but that they have less to invest in build a larger company and less capital to actually motivate them into business where the taxes are higher.

    In an extreme version meant to highlight this, the Laffer Curve states if a person is taxed at 100% they have no income and no investments, and therefore exits the market, producing zero residual revenue.
  51. Profile photo of klaxor
    klaxor Male 18-29
    646 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 9:15 pm
    Just b/c they have less to invest doesn`t mean that investment will stop. It`s in their interest to invest for two reasons. The interest rate and inflation. If they leave their money sitting in the bank, even with a good r, they effectively lose around 2% of it a year(2% of a billion is 20 million). If there`s one thing rich ppl hate, is losing money. If they want to keep their same purchasing power, the only option is to invest.

    And, most of the time, they don`t deal with their own finances. They have brokers and accountants who`s salary depends on their investment, and you can bet that those brokers will remind them about the 20 million.
  52. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3511 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 9:15 pm
    @klaxor: Sry rewrote it, but it`s how you tax them. If your talking federal tax they just move their money offshore and it`s less to tax. Corporate tax is passed to the consumer. Sales tax forces business overseas resulting in no revenue.
    What type of tax are you indicating?

    @jamie76: The great recession is generally considered by almost all economists to be the result of the American dot com bubble and finally the housing bubble. here
  53. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3511 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 9:24 pm
    "Just b/c they have less to invest doesn`t mean that investment will stop."

    True, they don`t stop unless you reach 100% But studies show you can`t maximize the revenues past around 35%.

    "brokers will remind them about the 20 million."
    But in that scenario the alternative is 100% and losing 20 million rather than the full billion is still considered advantages. The 100% is just to high-lite how as taxation increase past a certain point it doesn`t amount to more revenue.
  54. Profile photo of klaxor
    klaxor Male 18-29
    646 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 9:25 pm
    "In an extreme version meant to highlight this, the Laffer Curve states if a person is taxed at 100% they have no income and no investments, and therefore exits the market, producing zero residual revenue."

    It only works that way if you`re introducing a flat tax rate across the board, with no deductions, that`s some communist type stuff.

    A better extreme would be, what happens if you only tax the wages of the top 10%? What market do they exit?
  55. Profile photo of DromEd
    DromEd Male 40-49
    1945 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 9:25 pm
    conservatives = delusional greedy bastards

    My wife just got a yearly bonus from her work for about 8,400 bucks. After the fed takes a bite she gets 4,500. Who the drat is the greedy one in this picture?
  56. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3511 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 9:33 pm
    "It only works that way if you`re introducing a flat tax rate across the board, with no deductions, that`s some communist type stuff."

    Unfortunitly, no. It has to do with market elasticity and deals with income based tax.


    "A better extreme would be, what happens if you only tax the wages of the top 10%? What market do they exit?"

    The American markets, reflected in our stockmarket.
  57. Profile photo of klaxor
    klaxor Male 18-29
    646 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 9:35 pm
    "they just move their money offshore and it`s less to tax"

    - not if you tax their investment.

    I`m talking about a tax on investment, on wages and inheritance.

    "But in that scenario the alternative is 100% and losing 20 million rather than the full billion is still considered advantages. The 100% is just to high-lite how as taxation increase past a certain point it doesn`t amount to more revenue."

    - That doesn`t make sense. Investment isn`t wages. If you invest money, and that money grows, and 99% of that growth is taxed, you still made 1% profit. The only thing that you worry about then, is the chance for loss, forcing investors to make less risky investments, which is kind of a good thing since risky investments are what got us into this mess in the first place.
  58. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 9:35 pm
    jamie: "...why you continue to follow a party that does not want to do crap to help you ever get more than you have..."

    More class warfare rhetoric. You believe only the liberals in government want to help people. What they really want is a cradle to grave populace beholden to government handouts, a permanent voting block. The liberals really DO NOT care about the poor, they care about becoming career politicians.

    Republicans care about growing business and those growing businesses create jobs and grow the economy. A growing economy nets more revenue which in turn gets re-invested and grows more business and jobs.

    But you don`t believe in that, you believe business leaders re-invest just to make more money for themselves alone. Sure maybe greed is a motivating factor, but when that greed nets more jobs, more economic growth and more tax revenue, then what good reason do you have for wanting to stunt that growth with more punitive taxes?
  59. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3511 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 9:46 pm
    "I`m talking about a tax on investment, on wages and inheritance."

    These are forms of income tax. To which the Laffer curve applies.

    "not if you tax their investment"

    in this case it would be reflects in less people buying stocks, and top 10% selling their stocks.
    By the way if you make minimum wage your part of the top 12% on earth.

    "That doesn`t make sense. Investment isn`t wages. If you invest money, and that money grows, and 99% of that growth is taxed, you still made 1% profit."

    I said 100% at 99% you are correct but as you must admit 1% profit does not draw as much incentive, especially compared to a foreign market competing with us, such as china. In this case, yea someone may invest, but the government wouldn`t make nearly as much revenue comparability. Which is what the laffer curve states.
  60. Profile photo of klaxor
    klaxor Male 18-29
    646 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 9:46 pm
    "The American markets, reflected in our stockmarket."

    - Like I said, investments aren`t wages. If you tax their wages, and they decide to leave, then what? A CEO can`t force a company to move for his benefit.

    If you only tax the wages of the top 10%, and they can`t move without losing their jobs, and you tax their investments, what then? They stop working and investing and just wait for their money to run out? Their only other options are to

    A) drop to a lower income bracket
    B) invest in/move to another country with a lower tax rate.

    There are plenty of countries that act as tax havens, but rich ppl only send their money there. They don`t move/invest in those countries for a reason.
  61. Profile photo of klaxor
    klaxor Male 18-29
    646 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 9:53 pm
    "in this case it would be reflects in less people buying stocks, and top 10% selling their stocks"

    - Why would they sell their stocks as long as the company is making money? Especially with less people buying them.

    It`s also not always that easy to invest in foreign companies, especially in communist countries that impose limits on how much stock a foreigner can own.
  62. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 9:56 pm
    F*UCK YOU Cajun247!!!!!!

    Oh come now, I know you`re being sarcastic.

    Republicans care about growing business and those growing businesses create jobs and grow the economy.

    Yes and no. Republicans play the power game just like Democrats do. Republicans have a fondness for military Keynesianism, hence their whining over small cuts to military spending (defense is a horrific euphemism) in the sequester deal. They also don`t seem very keen to put an end to the epically horrific scheme of civil asset forfeiture that targets entities simply "suspected" of being involved in the drug trade.
  63. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3511 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 10:02 pm
    To the first question I choose option B)

    "invest in/move to another country with a lower tax rate."

    This is our problem with china.

    "Why would they sell their stocks as long as the company is making money?"

    Because the market becomes less competitive, they can make more elsewhere, if they don`t its called an opportunity cost.

    "Especially with less people buying them."
    This is a bad thing, a it drops the price of the stock, so there is less investment. And without the capital the stock becomes higher risk, and more likely to go under.
  64. Profile photo of klaxor
    klaxor Male 18-29
    646 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 10:04 pm
    Americans also pay certain taxes even if they move/work in another country.

    Unless you give up your citizenship. But then say bye bye to diplomatic leverage/protection when a local warlord decides to take your money.
  65. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 10:07 pm
    A) drop to a lower income bracket
    B) invest in/move to another country with a lower tax rate.

    If they`re a business owner they have additional option: Split the business they own into smaller units in terms of revenue they generate placing the business as a whole in a lower tax bracket.

    They can also divert their revenue into municipal bonds, the returns from which are largely tax exempt.
  66. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3511 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 10:09 pm
    "Unless you give up your citizenship. But then say bye bye to diplomatic leverage/protection when a local warlord decides to take your money."

    Or you move to a nontaxable principality of the US like John Paulson, keep your citizenship, rights, and money. But you never give up your citizenship you just acquire dual citizenship if you move to say China.
  67. Profile photo of klaxor
    klaxor Male 18-29
    646 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 10:12 pm
    "invest in/move to another country with a lower tax rate."

    Like I said, there`s a limit to how much you can invest in countries as a foreigner. Many countries don`t like foreigners owning over 50% of their industries. Those that do, aren`t well developed and/or don`t have the word "human rights" as part of their vocabulary.

    Also, a lot of chinese industries are dependent upon American industries. American companies fail, China takes a huge hit.

    There`s also a tax on foreign investment. These "extreme cases" are getting ridiculous, but if you increase the tax on foreign investment to 100%, keeping domestic at 99%, domestic investment will still be the better option.
  68. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33110 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 10:12 pm
    Except it`s not the ultra rich who actually make stuff.
    @klaxor: Be quiet, you obviously know nothing about even BASIC economics.
    If you raise a company`s cost 2%? They`ll pass that on to the customers EVERY time. Tax the CEO of the parent company more? Same thing!

    If you tax teh CEO`s wages...
    Then the CEOs will find other ways to "get paid" and avoid the tax. This will likely cost the company more, and that gets passed to the consumer. Or they just give themselves a fat raise to cover the new tax. Guess who pays for that?

    @richanddead: Thank goodness someone who knows more than I do about "economics" is voicing their opinion. Excellent explainations, and polite too!
    Pay no attention to @jamie76, he`s IAB`s resident "Republican Basher" - it`s all he does!
  69. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33110 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 10:18 pm
    They don`t move/invest in those countries for a reason.
    They sure enough WILL move!
    You think John Lennon lived in Toronto and New York for fun? He was a "tax refugee" because England taxed his income at 90%. So he refused to pay.
    Ask France about billionares moving to avoid their newest "tax on the rich".
    There`s 100s of countries that would welcome America`s billionares (and their companies too!) with open arms (and LOW taxes!).

    Money has legs, if you bother it? It walks away.
    If you try to chain it? It dies.
  70. Profile photo of klaxor
    klaxor Male 18-29
    646 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 10:18 pm
    "Or you move to a nontaxable principality of the US like John Paulson, keep your citizenship, rights, and money."

    - Then you say F U to puerto rico and force them to pay taxes. I don`t see why we`re even supporting them any more.

    Even with dual citizenship, you can`t escape paying certain American taxes. And, it`s not always easy to just up and go to another country with lower taxes, otherwise the rich would have done this a long time ago.
  71. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3511 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 10:26 pm
    @klaxor: ""human rights" as part of their vocabulary."

    Like Russia, china, or India. Our main competitors.

    "a lot of chinese industries are dependent upon American industries"
    Sure but if your introducing your industry to their market or simply selling your expertise on running a corporation, they certainly are not hurting for it.

    " but if you increase the tax on foreign investment to 100%, keeping domestic at 99%, domestic investment will still be the better option."
    Yes, truly, for anyone who would be foolish enough to invest in that market. The stocks would lose their values almost instantly, crippling the companies. Because the majority of revenue would go to the gov. no one would have much incentive to invest even for 1%. They would move, then invest in other markets. And the gov. would still get less revenue because the stock market would crash.

    5Cats: Thanks :) but Jamie is just voicing an opi
  72. Profile photo of Andrew155
    Andrew155 Male 18-29
    2579 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 10:29 pm
    Any household from the 1950`s and 1960`s would be considered in poverty by today`s standard. If you just look around at American consumerist society today, and compare it to history, you will be reminded of that Roman saying and realize that America has become panem et circenses.
  73. Profile photo of klaxor
    klaxor Male 18-29
    646 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 10:30 pm
    "Then the CEOs will find other ways to "get paid" and avoid the tax. This will likely cost the company more, and that gets passed to the consumer. Or they just give themselves a fat raise to cover the new tax. Guess who pays for that?"

    What ways are there for them to "get paid" that will cost a publicly shared company and be accepted by shareholders? They can`t just give themselves "a fat raise"at the expense of the company and piss off shareholders for no reason. They run the risk of losing their jobs, and being sued. Also, if i raise the wage tax on the CEO of google, will google suddenly start charging me for every search? Bing would be happy to hear that.

    "There`s 100s of countries that would welcome America`s billionares (and their companies too!) with open arms (and LOW taxes!)."

    - I doubt most billionaires own 100% share, or even 50% share of their company, so they can`t just move it.
  74. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3511 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 10:35 pm
    - Then you say F U to puerto rico

    F U isn`t a good economic strategy, just saying.

    "and force them to pay taxes."
    You see the loop your going on here right?

    "I don`t see why we`re even supporting them any more."

    here
  75. Profile photo of klaxor
    klaxor Male 18-29
    646 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 10:38 pm
    @5cats, please read the entire conversation, instead of just picking parts you don`t like, b4 trying to troll.

    @richanddead, i think that you`re underestimating how difficult it is to just move to another country and not pay taxes. If it were that easy, ppl wouldn`t wait for a rise in American taxes, they would have done it already. Why haven`t they?
  76. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3511 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 10:41 pm
    "What ways are there for them to "get paid" that will cost a publicly shared company and be accepted by shareholders?"

    Mergers and acquisitions
  77. Profile photo of klaxor
    klaxor Male 18-29
    646 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 10:46 pm
    "F U isn`t a good economic strategy, just saying."

    - Right, b/c puerto rico`s economy is what`s keeping us afloat. There`s no way that puerto rico isn`t an economic drain on the US

    "here"

    - what, we keep them around so that we can draft them. hardly seems worth it, and actually seems very, very wrong.
  78. Profile photo of klaxor
    klaxor Male 18-29
    646 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 10:53 pm
    "Mergers and acquisitions"

    - Only if it`s in the interest of the shareholders of both companies. There are also laws that regulate such actions to prevent unfair business practices, such as if it would give a company too much of a monopoly.
  79. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3511 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 10:56 pm
    If it were that easy, ppl wouldn`t wait for a rise in American taxes, they would have done it already. Why haven`t they?

    Well for the most part our taxation is not as high as you would suggest, thus we are still very competitive because we still have the capital of the rich. We have also been following what is known as supply-sided economics, sometimes called Reaganomics for quite sometime. Hence your outrage at certain issuies, it isn`t perfect I agree but its the best possible known solution economically, and markets respond to that. Since the 90`s our economy is becoming more Keynesian again, despite being largely disproven, that`s why loopholes are becoming so important to competitiveness.
    European countries have taken many of the steps you have suggested and in response they were forced to create the EU simply to continue competing with us. Yet as we now slowly seeing it was a temporary fix.
  80. Profile photo of klaxor
    klaxor Male 18-29
    646 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 10:56 pm
    "you will be reminded of that Roman saying and realize that America has become panem et circenses."

    - Is that from the Hunger Games? Everyone knows that it`s just a rip off of Battle Royale
  81. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3511 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 11:01 pm
    " There`s no way that puerto rico isn`t an economic drain on the US"

    Well actually...

    lol, so negitive..cheer up, dude.
  82. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15841 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 11:09 pm
    Dear Republicans

    you and I know this is primarily caused by your party.
    Wait, what the hell did the Republicans do to cause this sawed-off little f***tard to make an idiotic video spouting a bunch of communist redistributionist bull$#!+?
  83. Profile photo of klaxor
    klaxor Male 18-29
    646 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 11:10 pm
    "Well for the most part our taxation is not as high as you would suggest, thus we are still very competitive because we still have the capital of the rich"

    - There are still countries with far lower tax rates regardless. It`s kind of hard to compete with a 0% tax rate in Angola, so why aren`t the rich(or their money) flocking over there?

    "We have also been following what is known as supply-sided economics, sometimes called Reaganomics for quite sometime. Hence your outrage at certain issuies, it isn`t perfect I agree but its the best possible known solution economically, and markets respond to that"

    It hasn`t been working recently, in case you haven`t noticed. Reaganomics only works if the economy itself is thriving. Even then, it opens itself up to economic instability (numerous bubbles and panics). In the end, a majority of ppl are risk-averse and more in favor of economic stability than unpredictable economic growth. Reaganomics has onl
  84. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3511 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 11:12 pm
    "Only if it`s in the interest of the shareholders of both companies."

    And if it`s to avoid shareholder loss of funds and its a competitive and wealthy, low risk company. That is exactly what happens. Yep your getting it.

    "prevent unfair business practices, such as if it would give a company too much of a monopoly."
    Again only if it is a US company, and actually still no, there are things called natural monopolies that our government allows. Things like oil, airlines, gas and electric companies. The laws are not so well defined as one might think. Plus once a monopoly is created, it can be worse economically to try to remove it, but that`s a whole other thing.
  85. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15841 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 11:14 pm
    ...America has become panem et circenses.
    Only now it`s food stamps and reality TV.
  86. Profile photo of scapegoat7
    scapegoat7 Male 18-29
    210 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 11:17 pm
    Higher taxes don`t kill jobs.

    1950`-60`s

    Clinton raised top marginal tax- Surplus

    Bush cuts taxes on rich- Deficit
  87. Profile photo of klaxor
    klaxor Male 18-29
    646 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 11:19 pm
    "Well actually... "

    - That`s just b/c it`s a part of the US with low taxes. So, yeah, it is a drain on the US since it`s just a tax haven for american companies.

    The Economist magazine calculated that from 1990 to 2009, the U.S. government spent $182 billion more in Puerto Rico than it received from the territory in taxes.
  88. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3511 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 11:23 pm
    "- There are still countries with far lower tax rates regardless. It`s kind of hard to compete with a 0% tax rate in Angola, so why aren`t the rich(or their money) flocking over there? "

    Dude, I love your questions. Here read this, my hands hurt.

    "It hasn`t been working recently, in case you haven`t noticed. Reaganomics only works if the economy itself is thriving. Even then, it opens itself up to economic instability (numerous bubbles and panics). In the end, a majority of ppl are risk-averse and more in favor of economic stability than unpredictable economic growth."

    Very true, it follows a predictable up and down trend (has a name I can`t remember at the moment).
    But is still far more stable than the Keynesian model, which is why supply-sided markets are bigger and more competitive.

  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3511 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 11:30 pm
    "That`s just b/c it`s a part of the US with low taxes. So, yeah, it is a drain on the US since it`s just a tax haven for american companies."

    No thats it`s independent GDP, what are you going on if not the regional GDP? Anyway it said, if you read it, the majority comes from manufacturing jobs.
  • Profile photo of klaxor
    klaxor Male 18-29
    646 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 11:32 pm
    "And if it`s to avoid shareholder loss of funds and its a competitive and wealthy, low risk company. That is exactly what happens. Yep your getting it. "

    - And so, how would that be bad for an economy?

    "Again only if it is a US company, and actually still no, there are things called natural monopolies that our government allows"

    - We`re not talking about foreign companies, and not every company can just define itself as a natural monopoly.

    "The laws are not so well defined as one might think."
    - Now you`re just giving up to corporations. If Teddy could do it, we can too, we just need to grow a pair and stop relying on failed economic theories.
  • Profile photo of Andrew155
    Andrew155 Male 18-29
    2579 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 11:39 pm
    scapegoat, those tax rates were before globalization. A good portion of the crises that currently plagues the West is because of globalization. The fact that it`s so easy to drive jobs overseas with slightly higher taxes was a factor that didn`t exist in the 50`s. And the one dimensional causation business is sloppy.
  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3511 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 11:41 pm
    " And so, how would that be bad for an economy?"

    It would be great for the Chinese economy but bad for the American economy, because it would be leaving our taxable markets and we would not be able to make as much revenue if it left.

    "We`re not talking about foreign companies, and not every company can just define itself as a natural monopoly"
    I was just trying to make an example that the laws are not as clearly defined and solid as your making them out to be. If they were China wouldn`t be an issue. Your asking a lot of "what if" questions and I`m just trying to answer you without going though five pages.

    "we just need to grow a pair and stop relying on failed economic theories."

    Ok dude, you do that if you want to, have fun. I`m going to follow the economic Nobel prize winners, and make some money. We`ll just agree to disagree, eh?

  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3511 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 11:46 pm
    @scapegoat7:
    "Clinton raised top marginal tax- Surplus

    Bush cuts taxes on rich- Deficit "

    True, but your oversimplifying it, here.
  • Profile photo of klaxor
    klaxor Male 18-29
    646 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 11:47 pm
    "No thats it`s independent GDP, what are you going on if not the regional GDP? Anyway it said, if you read it, the majority comes from manufacturing jobs"

    - How does that make it economically helpful for the US. Especially with 13.5% unemployment, and with median income salaries of less than half of Mississippi`s. If puerto rico is doing so wellthen why is it`s population declining as people leave the island to come to the US,
    and why is it`s credit rating LOWER THN GREECE. Clearly, it is the diamond of the Caribbean.
  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3511 posts
    March 13, 2013 at 11:49 pm
    I gotta go to bed people..good night, sleep tight, don`t let the keynesians bite, lol.
  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3511 posts
    March 14, 2013 at 12:01 am
    @klaxor: As of April 17, 2012, most of the cruises that visited the island are leaving because of their own economic reasons.

    Here

    It effects the tourism industry there. Now seriously, I`m turning the PC off, see you tomorrow if you have more questions.
  • Profile photo of klaxor
    klaxor Male 18-29
    646 posts
    March 14, 2013 at 12:02 am
    @richanddead - you`re also just giving me a bunch of what ifs and "extreme cases", and the situations that you`re giving me are just not as simply as you want to make them seem., especially when you move out of a closed economy and into a global one. Other countries` economies don`t operate in the same western economic manner that you think that they do.

    "We`ll just agree to disagree" - and get led into a f*ing economic depression along the way
  • Profile photo of onoffonoffon
    onoffonoffon Male 30-39
    2382 posts
    March 14, 2013 at 12:16 am
    I`m all for the greedy corporations not getting so rich off of cheap labor. It`s just that the worst idea ever is to let the government have more money. Why couldn`t they just not allow corporate lobbyists. Oh wait I forgot... the lobbyists are needed to help the leaders decide what to do ie. make life easy for giant multinationals.
  • Profile photo of scapegoat7
    scapegoat7 Male 18-29
    210 posts
    March 14, 2013 at 3:37 am
    Honestly, fuq the government. Both parties work for the rich. The banks, wall street, and huge corporations screwed up the economy and stole TRILLIONS from tax payers. The government wont even go after these greedy mofo`s because their "too big to jail". fuq that. When they break the laws and ruin the economy they get bailed out and we get raped up the ass.

    Can someone explain where all that money they lost went to?
  • Profile photo of Magentab0b
    Magentab0b Female 30-39
    1467 posts
    March 14, 2013 at 6:51 am
    I am dumb cause I think the problem isn`t how much taxes will bring in but in the deregulation of the stock market. Who cares if we fix the economy now when we will probably mess it up again in 2045. This is a short term solution for the cry of "fix the economy" when we should be saying "no more bubbles."
  • Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33110 posts
    March 14, 2013 at 7:48 am
    They can`t just give themselves "a fat raise"at the expense of the company and piss off shareholders for no reason.
    @klaxor: O`really? Then just how did they get those multi-million dollar paycheques with multi-million dollar bonuses every year? Eh?
    #2 If the company makes less money (ie: does NOT pass the cost to the consumer) then the shareholders make less, and spend less on goods and services, and guess what? The POOR take the hit anyways!
    @5cats, please read the entire conversation,
    I`ve read EVERY WORD @klaxor, and why shouldn`t I "pick what I disagree with" to discuss? You scared of being asked a simple question? Oh, I guess you are scared. Poor bunny!

    "Mergers and acquisitions" = Yup!
    Also: Stock options, bonuses, golden retirement plan... lots of ways.
  • Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33110 posts
    March 14, 2013 at 7:57 am
    We`re not talking about foreign companies
    @klaxor: What do you imagine they are after they move? srsly. And where do these "outsourced jobs" goto? Where do they make "Levi Jeans" now? China. Is Levi still an "American Company"? Yes, but the bulk of it`s workers are not. It wouldn`t take much for them to move the rest of their infrastructure "offshore" as well, and yes the shareholders would support more profits, duh!

    I gotta go to bed people..good night, sleep tight, don`t let the keynesians bite, lol.
    @richanddead: You are far more patient and polite than I am! :-)
    That "IAB thing" is from the character counter: the number of characters inside your link isn`t counted, but does drive you over 1000, which causes that "eats the post below it" effect. (when you end on a link)
  • Profile photo of klaxor
    klaxor Male 18-29
    646 posts
    March 14, 2013 at 9:28 am
    @5cats - Manufacturing jobs move b/c of taxes on "production".

    SO, if you impose a $5 tax on dildo`s, then yes, the cost of dildo`s will go up by $5. But, if you tax the guy who makes dildo`s by 5%, and he decides to raise the price by 5%, his
    neighbor down the street may keep the prices where they are.

    His neighbor will steal his customers, and the guy will be even worse off than before.

    "O`really? Then just how did they get those multi-million dollar paycheques with multi-million dollar bonuses every year"

    - Either, the company is doing well, they lie about how the company is doing, the bonuses are written into their contract, or they just don`t tell anyone how much they actually get paid (lack of regulation).

    "If the company makes less money (ie: does NOT pass the cost to the consumer)" - How is a CEO making less money a cost to the company. Hell, it frees up more funds.
  • Profile photo of klaxor
    klaxor Male 18-29
    646 posts
    March 14, 2013 at 9:35 am
    " Oh, I guess you are scared. Poor bunny! "

    - I`m scared of ignorant asses who spew pseudo-economic bullpooe that they pick up from other ignorant asses who spew pseudo-economic bullpooe.

    It`s like a human centipede of dumbass. And, just like in the movie, it`s the middle class that ends up eating all the pooe
  • Profile photo of klaxor
    klaxor Male 18-29
    646 posts
    March 14, 2013 at 9:50 am
    "Can someone explain where all that money they lost went to?"

    - Depends on what money you`re talking about. In terms of the housing crash, people were selling each other other people`s debt. The problem came when people couldn`t pay back that debt. They declared bankruptcy and the debt was cancelled, which is fine for the bank, b/c they get a really expensive house as collateral, which they can sell. But, when there are a lot of expensive houses that nobody wants/can buy, then they are no longer that expensive, and the money invested in it is lost.

    It`s like hot potato, where a bunch of people bet on one guy, and if that guy loses, they lose their money, and the guy says "well, you shouldn`t have bet on me.
  • Profile photo of klaxor
    klaxor Male 18-29
    646 posts
    March 14, 2013 at 9:56 am
    "It`s just that the worst idea ever is to let the government have more money. "
    - Except for the fact that govt has run a huge deficit that they have to pay back if they ever want to be able to borrow money again.

    "I am dumb cause I think the problem isn`t how much taxes will bring in but in the deregulation of the stock market"

    - Those two are kind of connected. Low regulation requires low taxes.
  • Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    March 14, 2013 at 10:33 am
    @klaxor

    His neighbor will steal his customers, and the guy will be even worse off than before.
    This assumes that the "neighbor" is more efficient than the original seller. The problem, of course, is that the most efficient entities tend to be large corporations as they typically enjoy a much lower cost per unit output.

    With this in mind, we find that large corporations tend to be the entities that can absorb such costs as tax increases; as such, they are more capable of shielding consumers from price increases than smaller competitors. Inevitably, consumers will migrate to the lower priced product (See: Walmart).

    Corporate taxes, in any form, assist in the creation of corporations. They do not punish or spread the wealth of corporations. Rather, they remove potential competition from the market and accelerate the formation of pseudo-monopolies.
  • Profile photo of klaxor
    klaxor Male 18-29
    646 posts
    March 14, 2013 at 10:59 am
    @HumanAction - Jeez, someone else who can`t read.

    First of all, there`s more than one corporation willing to sell cheap chinese goods other than Walmart. Kmart, Target, Bestbuy, Costco and many others are willing to undercut Walmarts prices if given the chance. The reason that they don`t is b/c their prices are all as low as they can be.

    The CEO`s of smaller companies most likely make less than those of bigger companies. If the CEO a smaller company makes 500k, and there`s a tax on CEO`s that make over 2 million, then why would he raise his prices to offset a tax that doesn`t affect him? He won`t. And if he doesn`t, why would Walmart? They can`t. Not without risking the loss of customers.

    So yea, Walmart can take a SALES tax cost, but it can`t afford to take a HIGH LEVEL INCOME based tax cost.
  • Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    March 14, 2013 at 11:11 am
    @klaxor

    Jeez, someone else who can`t read.
    Really? Are you sure this is the road you want to go down? You offered a hypothetical situation based on an absurd assumption in a pathetic attempt to validate your argument. What`s more, you vainly attempted to relate it to a free market system.

    I`m sorry your feelings were hurt that I called you out for your bullsh*t. That being said, your argument was still bullsh*t.

    Kmart, Target, Bestbuy, Costco
    So, in your attempt to disprove my statement that corporate taxation leads to the growth of corporations, you offer a variety of corporations that could benefit? Do you see why I would have an issue with this logic?

    So yea, Walmart can take a SALES tax cost, but it can`t afford to take a HIGH LEVEL INCOME based tax cost.
    We were discussing you $5/dildo tax. That is a sales tax, not an income tax.
  • Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    March 14, 2013 at 11:16 am
    The reason that they don`t is b/c their prices are all as low as they can be.
    Thus, if your $5/dildo tax was levied against all of them, which do you suppose would be able to keep selling dildos at the lowest price? It would still be Walmart. Additionally, more people would buy their dildos from Walmart and these other retailers may stop selling dildos entirely. So, your dildo tax has actually led to a pseudo-monopoly.

    If the CEO a smaller company makes 500k, and there`s a tax on CEO`s that make over 2 million, then why would he raise his prices to offset a tax that doesn`t affect him?
    What does this have to do with taxing dildos? I don`t understand how you`ve considered this to be a reasonable defense to your suggested $5/dildo tax.

    It would appear that you should attempt to read more precisely as the may assist you in staying on topic.
  • Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33110 posts
    March 14, 2013 at 12:08 pm
    How is a CEO making less money a cost to the company. Hell, it frees up more funds.
    @klaxor: How does "taxing a CEO" free up money for a company? You wonder if I can read? lolz! Srsly dude...
    Speaking of "ignorant asses who spew pseudo-economic bullpooe" do you have the faintest idea what "predatory pricing" is?
    You charge a low-low price, steal customers, drive the cometition out of business, gaining a "monopoly". Then... you RAISE prices and make lots of money! There`s no more competition, so consumers have NO CHOICE but to pay!
    Basic. Economic. Priciples. You seem to not understand a single one of them.

    @HumanAction: You`re correct! @klaxor seems to have trouble understanding ANY of this!
    ESPECIALLY: That R.Reich is asking for a tax on WEALTH, NOT INCOME!! Get the two straight before replying, k-thx!
  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3511 posts
    March 14, 2013 at 12:12 pm

  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3511 posts
    March 14, 2013 at 12:17 pm
    "but it can`t afford to take a HIGH LEVEL INCOME based tax cost."

    @klaxor: ok I`m back but doing some home repairs, so I won`t be able to answer as fast as before.

    In regards to your questions about income tax, as you tax higher amounts of personal income, despite if it be from rich or middle class. After a certain point the total revenues from the tax begin to decrease, its known as the "region of declining revenue." It`s occurs because of more incentive traps, demotivation, corruption, and increasing inefficiencies as income taxes increase.
    In essence, in a non-extreme example, if you had 100 people at a tax of $10 a day you make $1000 a day in revenue. If you increase it to $50 a day, some people will leave or give up, some will hide their money, some choose other forms of payment, ect. Then you end up with say 17 people who fill the void and still pay the $50 tax. Yet now your only making $850 in revenues. It`s an opportunity cost of $150
  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3511 posts
    March 14, 2013 at 1:08 pm
    as I said before,

    Taxation and revenues are a clinically defined mathematical sum based on thousands of years of market study, not a generalized feeling of quality like "fairness" or "what should be". I understand the argument but it isn`t reasonable, it would hurt more people than it helped.
  • Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33110 posts
    March 14, 2013 at 3:05 pm
    Funny thing: I was watching BBC World News today, and they reported on how the "disparity between the very rich and the very poor" is a big problem... in China!

    But bash away at the USA! It`s been a "problem" since the dawn of humanity.
  • Profile photo of AvatarJohn
    AvatarJohn Male 30-39
    1059 posts
    March 15, 2013 at 7:10 am
    Richanddead, we`re just to the right of point C.

    Can we just tax Robert Reichhhhhhhhhhh`s vast wealth about 99.9%?
  • Profile photo of alltagstod
    alltagstod Male 18-29
    30 posts
    March 17, 2013 at 10:30 am
    @richanddead
    The rich already hide their money, so your "region of declining revenue" is a fallacy. People with money will always look for ways to not part with that money, especially where the government is concerned(exceptions made for Warren Buffet and the like). SO in fact, since the rich already are hiding their money, we might as well go for a hiked up tax rate on them anyways.
  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3511 posts
    March 18, 2013 at 4:45 am
    @alltagstod: The region of declining revenue includes corruption in its construct and never states that even at optimum levels that corruption vanishes, merely that it becomes far less prominent, this spans all income brackets too not simply the rich, anyone can cheat on their taxes rich, middle class, or poor.
    Secondly, it does not correlate to any of the fallacies of logic since it is based on deductive reasoning and empirical data. Which fallacy did you believe it was by the way?
    Even if you did tax the rich more because you dislike this, your revenue produced will continue to fall. The gov. will take in less money then it is presently and as taxes increase so will the amounts corruption.
    Everyone, not simply the rich, hopes to save their own money, including Warren Buffet. If a person wishes to give everything they own away, they are an outlier and not statistically relevant. It is even considered a sign of mental illness according to the DSM.
  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3511 posts
    July 1, 2013 at 3:46 pm
    @chalket:
    "it says nothing about them continuing to rise."
    It didn`t say it was going to rise in 2010 but it still did

    "15% of it is basically ass-hat Republican governors refusing to play the game."

    Firstly it is not a game, secondly it is their constitutional right to do so, that the democrats tried to infringe upon. Thirdly, what did you expect when democrats took no interest in seeking any bipartisan approach or even reading what they were voting on. Fourth, republicans shouldn`t it financially irresponsible and an inefficient way to create jobs. More than half a dozen states may join the 21 already opting out after the 2014 and 2016 elections.

    "average penalty of $312. That, to me, is not too much of a hardship"
    Nice to be you, but thats over a weeks pay to a person on MW. It goes up to $7B in 2016 and will be a minimum penalty of $695 per person and up to 3-times that per family. After 2016, these amounts will
  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3511 posts
    July 1, 2013 at 3:46 pm
    (cont)

    "they are choosing to disobey the law"
    No they are not, although you may want to believe they are to satisfy your own bias. The penalty is not a sentence for a crime, it is a tax, just as the white house said it was to the SCOTUS but had lied to the public by promising it wasn`t.

    "by foisting their health expenses on the rest of us."
    Thats not their fault, the democrats worded their legislation so that this was the effect. Maybe next time they should read what they are signing if they don`t like the results. Next time don`t foist legislation on them and they won`t foist their debt on you.

    "more people will have true healthcare instead of using subsidized emergency room visits"
    Exactly where do you think the money is coming from for these extra people? The 25 million are being subsidized by everyone elses rise in premiums and taxes. The money didn`t just appear out of thin air.
  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3511 posts
    July 1, 2013 at 3:46 pm
    "price of a trillion dollars" is a bit disingenuous. The $1.1 trillion estimate is over ten years"

    So if I pay for a BMW that costs $100,000 over ten years, you`re saying I`m not spending $100,000? A trillion is a trillion no matter how you sugar coat it, and its a trillion we don`t have on top of it. Don`t blow smoke up my ass.

    "you don`t mention the tens of billions each year in reduced healthcare spending"
    No that was on purpose, because there is no savings. Unlike the Department of Veterans Affairs, Medicare can not negotiate drug prices although Obama promised to end the "prohibition on Medicare negotiating." As an example, the VA pays as little as $191.16 for a year`s supply of Zocor 20 mg, while the Medicare pays at minimum $1,485.96 and up to $1,693.92 on Part D plans.link
  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3511 posts
    July 1, 2013 at 3:46 pm
    Also preventive care does not save any money like Obama and the dems love to lie about. Politifact.com and even the NY Times thoroughly dispelled this belief. Although Obama still flagrant lies that it does, like in his speech on Feb. 10, 2012.
    link

    "more than $200 billion in deficit reductions"

    Sorry to break it to you, but just because it was in the CBO doesn`t make it real, as I have already discussed. Although it wasn`t the CBO`s fault, it`s because some provisions of the law may not end up being implemented because 15 percent of hospitals and other such providers would become unprofitable if they were. Factcheck.org looked into it and found that claim to be unrealist.
  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3511 posts
    July 1, 2013 at 4:24 pm
    "you can`t start blaming it now for insurer`s greed."
    Your right I can`t I can blame it on the fact that because the insurance companies have to take on 25 million new people with preexisting conditions and they need to have enough money to cover them and their trips to the hospitals it will raise the cost and also to offset the cost so that lower income brackets can enter in as well. And yes they were increasing but only because of inflation and other procedures the government told them they had to take on. Even the CBO has linked these increases to the new healthcare plan.
    link

    "More medical misadventures"? Huh?"
    link
  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3511 posts
    August 5, 2013 at 11:06 am
    link

    link

    link

    link

    link
  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3511 posts
    August 5, 2013 at 11:12 am
    (cont)
    And here is the 9 article it was cited in, in 2013 alone. (keep in mind over the 12 years it was cited in dozens and dozens of studies, but if you need those cited as well just ask.)
    link

    link

    link

    link

    link
  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3511 posts
    August 5, 2013 at 11:17 am
    (cont)
    link

    link

    link

    link

    ...not a denialist websites among them and all peer reviewed. You know just looking at the citation on the graph or the sources I provided you would have revealed this. Maybe you should refine you reverse google search or maybe you should look at the validity of data rather than simply who wants to show it and if it supports your case.
  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3511 posts
    August 12, 2013 at 4:48 pm
    (cont)

    Secondly, I agree with most sentiments here that the news is heavily biased. 46% of all Liberals and 49% of all Moderates also agree this is true.
  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3511 posts
    September 14, 2013 at 6:14 pm
    @mesovortex: "However, right now, they are not slow and gradual. They are rapid. When climate changes rapidly in the past it caused mass extinctions.Why would you willingly want to go through one?"

    Firstly, any extinctions that happen are going to happen from over hunting/fishing, sprawling, or pesticides, not global warming. And it isn`t that I want to go threw one, I just believe the change in weather is natural, not man induced, which you don`t seem to be grasping. The earth has changed far quicker like 130 thousand years ago years ago when temperature increased by 9 degrees celsius. If you compare now to then, our rate of increase actually looks a little more stable.


  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3511 posts
    January 21, 2014 at 12:02 pm
    It never says that all people are necessarily born entirely equal to another in status, form, or ability. He is saying the imperfections of one will never outweigh the advantages to such a point were it becomes impossible for the advantageous one to be truly safe, if a person truly willed something it would happen.

    Therefore systems that depended on the pure subjugation of a society would be found unstable and given time I think we have seen that truth.

    Of course this gif is bashing our values in such a way, yet I think it is highlighting the fact that all people tend to be more accepting of other people that are more like them before accepting person of a different culture.
    Its America imposing its value of "melting in a melting pot" onto citizens with the constant need to integrate in new ways and sometimes forcibly. And sometimes the Country has seen times of resentment because of that. But its the American Value that has always sought to make th
  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3511 posts
    January 21, 2014 at 12:03 pm
    It never says that all people are necessarily born entirely equal to another in status, form, or ability. He is saying the imperfections of one will never outweigh the advantages to such a point were it becomes impossible for the advantageous one to be truly safe, if a person truly willed something it would happen.

    Therefore systems that depended on the pure subjugation of a society would be found unstable and given time I think we have seen that truth.

    Of course this gif is bashing our values in such a way, yet I think it is highlighting the fact that all people tend to be more accepting of other people that are more like them before accepting person of a different culture.
    Its America imposing its value of "melting in a melting pot" onto citizens with the constant need to integrate in new ways and sometimes forcibly. And sometimes the Country has seen times of resentment because of that. But its the American Value that has always sought opportunit
  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3511 posts
    March 2, 2014 at 8:48 pm
    "No it isn`t. "
    Link
    link

    "What countries are you talking about?"
    Countries like Italy, Greece, Romania, Hungry, and Bulgaria.

    "Pure doomsday speculation."
    The Euro almost collapsed with no aid from any conflict back in 2009 and 2012.
    "past virtue counts for little at the moment if the euro collapses"
    -The Economist, June 9, 2012

    "It is very naive to think that if Iran had a nuke it would immediately lob it at Tehran."
    I`m sure it would since Tehran is the largest city of Iran, but if you mean Israel...
  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3511 posts
    March 2, 2014 at 8:52 pm
    They have armed and prepared to use their nukes in October 8, 1973, 1991, and 2003. According to the Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations Israel will conduct a preemptive attack on any possible attack using conventional, chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.
    Iran is just as bad, routinely parading banners on long range missiles that say "Israel must be uprooted and wiped off the pages of history."





  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3511 posts
    March 2, 2014 at 8:54 pm
    "This never happened, though keeping Pakistani nukes secured in the long term may one day become a major concern."

    No sorry you`re wrong, it just wasn`t widely reported. Go to 53:31 on the video link

    "Oversimplification of ongoing territorial disputes."
    Sorry, I see you as understating it, the Council of National Defense approved the draft of the full-scale rearmament of the country specifically because of China. LINK
  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3511 posts
    March 2, 2014 at 8:56 pm
    "Oversimplification."
    Link

    "Even as al Qaeda`s leadership in Pakistan struggles to remain relevant, the terrorist threat we face has become more diverse, Al Qaeda has turned to other groups to carry out attacks and to advance its ideology. These groups are based in an array of countries, including Yemen, Somalia, Nigeria and in Iraq."

    -National Counterterrorism Director Matt Olsen


    "What???? This is just weird."
    Oh it now? Almost every Russian ruler has sought to conquer ports in warm waters going all the way back to Peter the Great. Numerous wars were fought over this.
  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3511 posts
    March 2, 2014 at 9:07 pm
    "It is very naive to think that if Iran had a nuke it would immediately lob it at Tehran."
    I`m sure it would since Tehran is the largest city of Iran, but if you mean Israel...
    They have armed and prepared to use their nukes "the Samson Option" in October 6 1973, January 18 1991, and 2003. According to the Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations Israel will conduct a preemptive attack on any possible attack using conventional, chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.
    LINK

    Iran is just as bad, routinely parading banners on long range missiles that say "Israel must be uprooted and wiped off the pages of history."



  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3511 posts
    March 2, 2014 at 9:09 pm
    "It is very naive to think that if Iran had a nuke it would immediately lob it at Tehran."
    I`m sure it would since Tehran is the largest city of Iran, but if you mean Israel...
    They have armed and prepared to use their nukes "the Samson Option" in October 6 1973, January 18 1991, and 2003. According to the Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations Israel will conduct a preemptive attack on any possible attack using conventional, chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.
    LINK
  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3511 posts
    March 2, 2014 at 9:12 pm
    "No it isn`t. "
    LINK
    LINK

    "What countries are you talking about?"
    Countries like Italy, Greece, Romania, Hungry, and Bulgaria.

    "Pure doomsday speculation."
    The Euro almost collapsed with no aid from any conflict back in 2009 and 2012.
    "past virtue counts for little at the moment if the euro collapses"
    -The Economist, June 9, 2012
  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3511 posts
    March 2, 2014 at 9:15 pm
    "It is very naive to think that if Iran had a nuke it would immediately lob it at Tehran."
    I`m sure it would since Tehran is the largest city of Iran, but if you mean Israel...

    They have armed and prepared to use their nukes "the Samson Option" in October 6 1973, January 18 1991, and possibly in 2003. According to the Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations Israel will conduct a preemptive attack on any possible attack using conventional, chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.
    LINK
    LINK
  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3511 posts
    March 2, 2014 at 9:17 pm
    Iran is just as bad, routinely parading banners on long range missiles that say "Israel must be uprooted and wiped off the pages of history."



  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3511 posts
    March 2, 2014 at 9:19 pm
    "This never happened, though keeping Pakistani nukes secured in the long term may one day become a major concern."

    No sorry you`re wrong, it just wasn`t widely reported. Go to 53:31 on the video LINK

    "Oversimplification of ongoing territorial disputes."
    Sorry, I see you as understating it, the Council of National Defense approved the draft of the full-scale rearmament of the country specifically because of China. LINK
  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3511 posts
    March 2, 2014 at 9:20 pm
    "Oversimplification."
    Link
  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3511 posts
    March 2, 2014 at 9:24 pm
    "Oversimplification."

    "Even as al Qaeda`s leadership in Pakistan struggles to remain relevant, the terrorist threat we face has become more diverse, Al Qaeda has turned to other groups to carry out attacks and to advance its ideology. These groups are based in an array of countries, including Yemen, Somalia, Nigeria and in Iraq."

    -National Counterterrorism Director Matt Olsen
    Link


    "What???? This is just weird."
    Oh it now? Almost every Russian ruler has sought to conquer ports in warm waters going all the way back to Peter the Great. Numerous wars were fought over this.
    LINK
  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3511 posts
    March 2, 2014 at 9:26 pm
    @xavroche:

    "No it isn`t. "
    LINK
    LINK

    "What countries are you talking about?"
    Countries like Italy, Greece, Romania, Hungry, and Bulgaria.

    "Pure doomsday speculation."
    The Euro almost collapsed with no aid from any conflict back in 2009 and 2012.
    "past virtue counts for little at the moment if the euro collapses"
    -The Economist, June 9, 2012
  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3511 posts
    March 16, 2014 at 8:23 am
    @xavroche:

    ROFL, so your in your words "confused," you don`t think the maps I showed don`t "hold any historical basis" and are "examples of revisionism." And you just can`t understand why I get caught up on the dates of your map. You think any map from a Jew is biased. Wow, you really don`t know history do you and you accused me of revisionism, lol.

    Ok, let me spell it out for you.

    1. The dates on your map matter because they take place in 1946 not at 1920 when the Mandate of Palestine was created. Its a great map, very accurate, its just the wrong time period and that kinda matters. I can show a map of America in the 1960`s and it would show Alaska, but that doesn`t mean Alaska was a state in the 1940`s. Similarly, just because you show a map with the boundaries of 1946 doesn`t mean they were the same in 1920.
  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3511 posts
    March 16, 2014 at 8:25 am
    @xavroche:

    ROFL, so you are, to use your words "confused," and you don`t think the maps I showed "hold any historical basis" and are "examples of revisionism." And you just can`t understand why I get caught up on the dates of your map. You think any map from a Jew is biased. Wow, you really don`t know history do you and you accused me of revisionism, lol.

    Ok, let me spell it out for you.

    1. The dates on your map matter because they take place in 1946 not at 1920 when the Mandate of Palestine was created. Its a great map, very accurate, its just the wrong time period and that kinda matters. I can show a map of America`s borders in the 1960`s and it would show Alaska, but that doesn`t mean Alaska was a state in the 1940`s. Similarly, just because you show a map with the boundaries of 1946 doesn`t mean they were the same in 1920.
  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3511 posts
    March 16, 2014 at 8:28 am
    Where did you get this idea that my "theory" was "that the whole of Palestine as it is understood in 1946/1947"? Please quote me where I said that. I didn`t even say a date as, I already stated earlier, I only said "They split palestine," so when did they split Palestine? When were they planning an Oil pipeline? Hmmmmm? Not 1946, thats for sure, but nice strawman argument none the less.

    2.) I never ever said "Palestine was destined exclusively as a Jewish state by the British and the other great powers." This is simply an example of another strawman argument you`re trying to knock down.


  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3511 posts
    March 16, 2014 at 8:34 am
    3.) Concerning the maps of palestine in 1920 that you consider confusing, not holding "any historical basis" and "pretty strong examples of revisionism."

    Perhaps you tell me what is incorrect about them? Perhaps you can even provide what a map of Palestine in 1920 looked like? Or maybe the map of Transjordan and palestine after the Transjordan Memorandum in 1922 that doesn`t look like this one? Oh yes, I would be VERY INTERESTED to see how you believed it looked like since you have such a better grasp of history.

    Because after all, my maps are "strong examples of revisionism and honestly have no place in a serious argument."
  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3511 posts
    March 16, 2014 at 8:37 am
    You know though its strange european news agencies and multiple Colleges and Universities seem to disagree with you like for instance
    BBC
    or Penn State.

    Oh and here is Dartmouth College`s map of the region

  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3511 posts
    March 16, 2014 at 8:39 am
    Oh no it must be a "zionist agenda," quickly lets check every other source...

    OH NO!!!!















  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3511 posts
    March 16, 2014 at 8:44 am
    You know I read through your comments several times saying to myself, "No, this is a smart guy, our argument must just be paralleling with each other, we must just be nit picking the fine details."

    But every single time I read your statement "had me a bit confused at first because they didn`t seem to hold any historical basis." I finally had to admit that you`re simply trolling and don`t even know history your commenting on.
  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3511 posts
    March 16, 2014 at 8:46 am
    You know I read through your comments several times saying to myself, "No, this is a smart guy, our arguments must just be paralleling with each other, we must just be nit picking the fine details."

    But every single time I read your statement "had me a bit confused at first because they didn`t seem to hold any historical basis...strong examples of revisionism and honestly have no place in a serious argument." I finally had to admit that you`re simply trolling and don`t even know history your commenting on.
  • Leave a Reply