This is what happens when the policies of the republicans and right wing dont agree with the people of the country and need to use exaggerate everything to create fear. If you listen to some of these republicans broadcasters, you think the country would become a third world country in the next 2 years under Obama. Yet, they are the ones who are responsible for the current crisis and they have no shame. I guess they are just hungry for the bigger piece of pie into their fat stomachs.
The right wing in America and their media is the closest thing you have in the US to IR style mentality and media. Fox is full of propaganda, taken directly out of IRIB's manual. As for some right wing commentators, like Bill O'Reilly and Glen Beck.....well, do I even need to explain their similarity to IR fanatics?
So true, but here is a little difference (or big) between some of the rich. The republican rich , in general, want a bigger piece of pie directly into their pockets and dont care about anything else. Hell, if you tell them, that we can give you all the country's money in tax forms, but the rest will be bankrupt, they will say they will take it, with only catch, transfer it into their overseas banks into other emerging economies.
The democrat and other type of rich, in general, see making a little less through taxes, that they dont really need, but having more money in circulation, and more middle class able to open small businesses, and the more people that have the money, the country would do better economically, and the rich will end up making alot more money that the relatively small amount they get through tax cuts.
Makes sense? The more money the more number of people have to spend, and open businesses, the better the country is. I dont get why republicans dont get that. Having a small number that have all the money and few corporations is not the answer.
The democrat and other type of rich, in general, see making a little less through taxes, that they dont really need, but having more money in circulation, and more middle class able to open small businesses, and the more people that have the money, the country would do better economically, and the rich will end up making alot more money that the relatively small amount they get through tax cuts.
Makes sense? The more money the more number of people have to spend, and open businesses, the better the country is. I dont get why republicans dont get that. Having a small number that have all the money and few corporations is not the answer.
people are acting .i guess they found out money is in acting and entertaining .i mean real money .
eversince the media figured out they can make tones of money from elections day then they play fool, i mean in definition of american constitution the mening of freepress to protect of dmocracy .
i guess some one should tell me what is real definition of gambling .isn't risking ?
what i am trying to say is that free press and first and second amendments have been redicuiled by idea of profitism .
let's take the money out of election and media equally would give the fair share to people who run for the offices then you won't be seeing anyone clawning anymore .
then again you see real free press and caring not dividing .
eversince the media figured out they can make tones of money from elections day then they play fool, i mean in definition of american constitution the mening of freepress to protect of dmocracy .
i guess some one should tell me what is real definition of gambling .isn't risking ?
what i am trying to say is that free press and first and second amendments have been redicuiled by idea of profitism .
let's take the money out of election and media equally would give the fair share to people who run for the offices then you won't be seeing anyone clawning anymore .
then again you see real free press and caring not dividing .
That's why I am in favour of the higher paid paying more instead of the lower paid. If people with lower salaries get tax relief they will spend it on the High Street and in the shops, small businesses and the like. This keeps the wheels of the economy turning a lot quicker than givin the rich tax break. As I said before, the rich simply ship their money abroad to spend on new villas and boats or just leave them in the bank.
This is a figment of your imagination. The left want government mandated programs that benefit private entities (Banks/Pharma). Stop pretending like there is much of a difference. That only exists in rhetoric. In action, they're the same.
For someone who doesn't seem to be interested in Economics; you seem to repeat the same fallacies despite the fact that you keep getting evidence showing the contrary. Higher taxes don't help economic growth, for the zillionth time.
If you tax the rich but not the poor, what do you think happens? The people selling you those goods add on the difference of the taxes to adjust the profits to their advantage. Even the CBO admitted this is what largely happens. So, ultimately, the little guy is still paying for those taxes in a round about way.
Think of it this way: if the government institute a new 'smartphone tax' taking 5% more away from corporate profits; do you think the corporations just sit there making less money? No, they raise their prices accordingly. Who suffers? The guy who wants to buy the smartphone. See who really pays that tax now?
Or here is Friedman, giving you another example.
[video=youtube;rKY1xA36ua8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKY1xA36ua8[/video]
For someone who doesn't seem to be interested in Economics; you seem to repeat the same fallacies despite the fact that you keep getting evidence showing the contrary. Higher taxes don't help economic growth, for the zillionth time.
If you tax the rich but not the poor, what do you think happens? The people selling you those goods add on the difference of the taxes to adjust the profits to their advantage. Even the CBO admitted this is what largely happens. So, ultimately, the little guy is still paying for those taxes in a round about way.
Think of it this way: if the government institute a new 'smartphone tax' taking 5% more away from corporate profits; do you think the corporations just sit there making less money? No, they raise their prices accordingly. Who suffers? The guy who wants to buy the smartphone. See who really pays that tax now?
Or here is Friedman, giving you another example.
[video=youtube;rKY1xA36ua8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKY1xA36ua8[/video]
Last edited:
Kaz, it's simple. If ordinary people have money to spend they will. In my local area, do you know how many businesses have had to close because of lack of custom? People just can't afford to visit the local businesses.
In hard economic times, the rich don't suffer because they can still afford things. But the less well off do and with them suffer the local small businesses. It's not the rich minority that keep the high streets buzzing, it's the majority middle and lower classes that do by spending their money there.
The rich creating jobs is just one part of the economy. You seem to think it's everything and all that is needed is to make them richer in the hope that they open more shops and employ people. But if ordinary people don't have enough in their pockets to spend there then the rich just won't waste their money on new ventures. I can't believe you ignore this simple issue.
In hard economic times, the rich don't suffer because they can still afford things. But the less well off do and with them suffer the local small businesses. It's not the rich minority that keep the high streets buzzing, it's the majority middle and lower classes that do by spending their money there.
The rich creating jobs is just one part of the economy. You seem to think it's everything and all that is needed is to make them richer in the hope that they open more shops and employ people. But if ordinary people don't have enough in their pockets to spend there then the rich just won't waste their money on new ventures. I can't believe you ignore this simple issue.
You don't seem to understand. I don't give a shit about the rich.
All those taxes imposed on the rich will ultimately be paid by the consumer. Just as I explained in the above. What that means is that the consumer has less to spend, and the economy slows even more. Moreover, as Friedman explained, certain taxes not only are passed down to consumers; but they're offset by either paying employees less money or cutting them altogether. It can also mean no profit for shareholders - but I don't expect you to care that not all shareholders are millionaires and can be the average person. You see, this is the biggest con of all. They sucker people to tax others for their benefit, not realising all along that they're the ones paying it.
With all the respect I have for you; your solutions are wrong; have been proven to be wrong by people far more bright than you and I; and you can't claim ignorance of the facts because I keep presenting them to you. So I am confused. I, personally, change my position when I find it is no longer tenable on the facts - despite my instinctive connection to them. Either you're wrong, as I have demonstrated; or you are right, and we're still waiting for you to demonstrate your knowledge so that at least we can get something from these discussions.
All those taxes imposed on the rich will ultimately be paid by the consumer. Just as I explained in the above. What that means is that the consumer has less to spend, and the economy slows even more. Moreover, as Friedman explained, certain taxes not only are passed down to consumers; but they're offset by either paying employees less money or cutting them altogether. It can also mean no profit for shareholders - but I don't expect you to care that not all shareholders are millionaires and can be the average person. You see, this is the biggest con of all. They sucker people to tax others for their benefit, not realising all along that they're the ones paying it.
With all the respect I have for you; your solutions are wrong; have been proven to be wrong by people far more bright than you and I; and you can't claim ignorance of the facts because I keep presenting them to you. So I am confused. I, personally, change my position when I find it is no longer tenable on the facts - despite my instinctive connection to them. Either you're wrong, as I have demonstrated; or you are right, and we're still waiting for you to demonstrate your knowledge so that at least we can get something from these discussions.
Kaz, I am no economist, but what I do know is that there is two sides to it. Your argument is one side of it and there are many who argue in favour of what I am saying and actually implement it. Take the last Labour government in the UK who went some way to doing this.
As for this guy Friedman, you keep referring to him every other post as though he is some god and the only credible authority. He not the messiah, I and many really don't care for him.
As for this guy Friedman, you keep referring to him every other post as though he is some god and the only credible authority. He not the messiah, I and many really don't care for him.
In the last century there have been maybe 2-3 Economists in the world at his level; so he is an incredibly noteworthy authority. Moreover, if you don't agree with him, you can cite those arguments and make your case. I'll link an even better video below, please watch it.
But this isn't about sides. Do you understand the logic or not? Businessman X makes 100k a year in his business. If you increase taxes on him do you think he does not adjust his prices/employment and instead he accepts earning less money? That's the only logical conclusion we can draw from your opposition. That you think people inherently are okay with earning less money. Heck, corporations raise prices to counter inflation, let alone taxes.
[video=youtube;YmqoCHR14n8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmqoCHR14n8[/video]
The thing with taxes is that they tend to work in the short-run, giving the illusion that they're working. Once the market adjusts it is useless and the above-described scenario takes over.
But this isn't about sides. Do you understand the logic or not? Businessman X makes 100k a year in his business. If you increase taxes on him do you think he does not adjust his prices/employment and instead he accepts earning less money? That's the only logical conclusion we can draw from your opposition. That you think people inherently are okay with earning less money. Heck, corporations raise prices to counter inflation, let alone taxes.
[video=youtube;YmqoCHR14n8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmqoCHR14n8[/video]
The thing with taxes is that they tend to work in the short-run, giving the illusion that they're working. Once the market adjusts it is useless and the above-described scenario takes over.
Last edited:
i guess the problem is not taxing or layoff in order to save economy ,the problem is that the so called elite want to impose and the rest or 99 refuse to be modern slave .
bottom line is a healthy economy is a strong middle class, a strong middle class will eliminate poor and poverty .people with different imaginations ,different talents chose to do different things and work in order to survive, i mean beautiful definition of survival .
nowaday from money holders ( fat bank accounters)t till all the way down to homeless ,or physical workers ...they all play their victim cards .
whose's fault is it,internet, ok, let's blame on facebook,twitters skype and rest .
we are living in small world now,the imginations is getting to be smaller ,smaller .and alot of showing off is not too sexy anymore .
bottom line is a healthy economy is a strong middle class, a strong middle class will eliminate poor and poverty .people with different imaginations ,different talents chose to do different things and work in order to survive, i mean beautiful definition of survival .
nowaday from money holders ( fat bank accounters)t till all the way down to homeless ,or physical workers ...they all play their victim cards .
whose's fault is it,internet, ok, let's blame on facebook,twitters skype and rest .
we are living in small world now,the imginations is getting to be smaller ,smaller .and alot of showing off is not too sexy anymore .