Guitar Gear Forum

Lloyd Blankfein wrote:You don't "spend" on cuts. We aren't 'spending' anything on clowns like mitt.

Now, with that said, capital gains/dividends need to be taxed at the same rate an operating corp are. If they can reduce their liability by reinvesting in themselves, fine.

Actually we do.

If the tax rate is tiered for wage based earnings for everyone (which it is) but the clowns in government decide to give a break to the uber rich and give special low rates on dividend and Capital Gains income then that's money being spent as in it shows up as lost revenue on the government balance sheet.

If you own a business does it matter if you spend more to build a product, or if you give price breaks? The net effect is the same.

So yes, tax cuts cost money and we give special tax cuts to the super rich and they cost us a shitload of money. We also give a huge one to the middle/upper class in the form of the Mortgage Interest writeoff.

So you'll excuse me if I don't worry about social programs which come out of agency budgets and don't even show up in the federal budget.

We all understand that a tax cut will generally result in less revenue. That doesn't make it "spent money."

My state and federal governments aren't "spending" money on me by not taking the rest of my paycheck.

rear naked wrote:We all understand that a tax cut will generally result in less revenue. That doesn't make it "spent money."

My state and federal governments aren't "spending" money on me by not taking the rest of my paycheck.

If you're giving a break to one group of people (People who earn a living with investment income vs. wages) to the exclusion of others means it's exactly the same as handing them money at the end of the year.

The fact that they tend to be the 1% richest in the country just makes it extra fucked up.

No. It doesn't cost anyone anything. I can see how you are trying to stretch and bend it that way, but it just isn't working.

You will have to accept that fact before we can continue.

madryan wrote:
If you're giving a break to one group of people to the exclusion of others means it's exactly the same as handing them money at the end of the year.

So, low class poor people cost us an obscene amount of money? They don't even pay taxes. They'll get everything back at the end of the year. They are costing us money. A tremendous amount.

madryan wrote:

rear naked wrote:We all understand that a tax cut will generally result in less revenue. That doesn't make it "spent money."

My state and federal governments aren't "spending" money on me by not taking the rest of my paycheck.

If you're giving a break to one group of people (People who earn a living with investment income vs. wages) to the exclusion of others means it's exactly the same as handing them money at the end of the year.

Is my disposable income "spent" by my state and federal governments because I was allowed to keep it?

wow, what the fuck happened in here?

oh its that infowars asshole. didnt know he was local to austin. sorry, world. stfu, we gave you stevie. and fastball lol

rear naked wrote:

madryan wrote:

rear naked wrote:We all understand that a tax cut will generally result in less revenue. That doesn't make it "spent money."

My state and federal governments aren't "spending" money on me by not taking the rest of my paycheck.

If you're giving a break to one group of people (People who earn a living with investment income vs. wages) to the exclusion of others means it's exactly the same as handing them money at the end of the year.

Is my disposable income "spent" by my state and federal governments because I was allowed to keep it?

Think of it like this...

We have a tiered tax system. We collect taxes based on how much you make. If you work at a job waiting tables you pay a rate commensurate with your income. If you made a million dollars waiting tables you'd pay the top tax rate. If you're a CEO getting paid a salary you pay the top tax rate on that salary provided it's high enough because it's classified as "Wages" and is taxed as such.

Now... Everything is cool except a bunch of fat cats got together and decided they didn't want to pay taxes on their investment income. I mean if you could pay no more than 15% wouldn't you dig that?

The tax cut those guys get in essence costs the government money. It's a net loss in revenue and it's jacked up because someone like a Fire Fighter or a Union Electrician making wages pays a higher percentage of their income in taxes than someone like Mitt Romney who derives his income from a whole host of investments.

I'm gonna propose a crazy idea... Income = Income regardless of how you get it. It should be taxed at whatever income bracket you're in. Anything else is a form of welfare for you.

Now... Some folks need the help. Poor people shouldn't pay taxes. They're just scraping by as is. However, my parents, a social worker and a School Teacher pay about 2.5 times higher taxes as a percentage than Mitt Romney which is totally jacked up.

I'm all for people making whatever they want but we've forgotten that our system of laws and infrastructure in this country made the rich what they are. They need to give back.

Madryan I already said we understand that a tax reduction generally results in less revenue. I still don't call it spending. Let's not waste too much time arguing about it though...the semantics are not very important.

Using terms like fat cats doesn't do much for educated open discussion, either.

You'll have to remove your emotional attachment to the subject before we can move forward with honest discourse.

Chubby Pussies Work Better For You?

mamberg wrote:Chubby Pussies Work Better For You?

Gary Cohn is 6'2" 220

Lloyd Blankfein wrote:However, I see lots of dipshits that refuse to take care of themselves. They come from generational assisted families and have no care to break the chain. Why are we subsidizing them? Cut the rope, let them sink.

It's the same reason we pay for a public education system. It's the same reason we have rules governing things like food, buildings, health and safety. To create a better smelling, looking and acting society. You think the poor are bad now? Watch what happens in your Atlas Shrugged paradise.

I've only heard of atlas shrugs. Know nothing about it. Is it related to the ayn rand talking point I hear so often?

How am I getting lumped in to that? Because I demand results and success out of systems I pay for? That my tax dollars invest in?

Would you continue to make an investment into a concept that continues to fail? Probably not.

To take a step further, no one buys the line of spending their way out of poor results. You don't improve problems by increasing a capital contribution to it. Rather, you make it a bigger problem with much higher losses.

Lloyd Blankfein wrote:I've only heard of atlas shrugs. Know nothing about it. Is it related to the ayn rand talking point I hear so often?

How am I getting lumped in to that? Because I demand results and success out of systems I pay for? That my tax dollars invest in?

Would you continue to make an investment into a concept that continues to fail? Probably not.

To take a step further, no one buys the line of spending their way out of poor results. You don't improve problems by increasing a capital contribution to it. Rather, you make it a bigger problem with much higher losses.

Why? Because you are talking about social Darwinism.

Lloyd Blankfein wrote:I've only heard of atlas shrugs. Know nothing about it. Is it related to the ayn rand talking point I hear so often?

How am I getting lumped in to that? Because I demand results and success out of systems I pay for? That my tax dollars invest in?

Would you continue to make an investment into a concept that continues to fail? Probably not.

To take a step further, no one buys the line of spending their way out of poor results. You don't improve problems by increasing a capital contribution to it. Rather, you make it a bigger problem with much higher losses.

Give us a metric to define "success" by.

Foodstamps keeps millions of kids from starving. Something like half the recipients are kids.

Various forms of tuition assistance has helped millions of people go through college.

Section 8 and Social Security help people who are low income afford rent.

What exactly are we supposed to be using to define "success" anyway?

The ridiculous tax breaks for the uber rich have done nothing but widen the wealth gap in this country which has had the effect of screwing the middle class. There's a measure of "success" for you. Course it depends on your point of view.