Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:

Quote:

---

My point is regardless of the cost of education, If you decide to go to college YOU should pay the cost agreed. Why on earth should the kid not going to college subsidize the loans(Gov. pays interest while in school or grace period)to the kid in school? It is theft plain and simple. Gov. taking the wages of one kid and giving to another.....Unconstitutional in my book. It's the same principle I would use against most Gov. Programs....Tax me for defense. Hell even tax me for Social security(hate it, but it is what it is), however don't tax me just to give someone else a break. CHOOSE to go to school...pay your tab. Simple.

---

What about the revenue we get from taxing corporations, can we use that to subsidise higher education? After all businesses benefit from a society (and labour pool) where higher education is within reach of every smart individual.

Heads should roll

---

Quote:

---

Right now I'm dealing with the App store which is run very much that way. It's not very free market.

---

Quote:

---

Jimmy Buffet did an experiment and discovered his workers paid MORE TAXES than he did, although they earned far less.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Quote:

---

Jimmy Buffet did an experiment and discovered his workers paid MORE TAXES than he did, although they earned far less.

---

That's classic

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kirkules:
I wish someone would explain to me exactly how corporations pay taxes. Corporations sell produces that include all of their operating costs in the price. You buy the product, you pay the tax. If you only tax certain corporations like with sin taxes then you are just passing the tax burden to a smaller group of people. Those groups most effected by sin taxes are usually those in society least able to handle the burden. A broad based consumption tax is the only fair way of realistically collecting the revenue needed to get us out of the hole we've dug ourselves.

---

This argument has always struck me as the very height of irony. Here y'all are defending the "free market" and then you straight up admit that there's nothing free about, that corporations set prices and people have no recourse but to pay up. You admit that there is no curb whatsoever, no "self correcting invisible hand" to keep corporations functioning within their means. No, they will always screw over the little guy no matter what we do and the little guy will have no recourse, so we better just keep paying tribute to our corporate rulers. It's hilarious that you guys don't catch yourselves when you give the game away like that.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kirkules:
So you essentially agree that corporations pass tax on to their customers, but the illusion that you are sticking it to the big bad corporations is more important to you than a tax system based in reality. Why you would deny a corporation or any non-monopoly the right to charge what they please for their product is beyond my understanding. Maximising profit is what drives innovation and productivity and makes products affordable for the masses. At exactly what point does a company like Apple go from the underdog fighting the big evil Microsoft with government assistance to the point where they become the evil corporation you disdain. I suppose you want the government to go after Apple now and stifle innovation so the next has been company can get a leg up.

---

Quote:

---

I wish someone would explain to me exactly how corporations pay taxes. Corporations sell produces that include all of their operating costs in the price. You buy the product, you pay the tax.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:

Quote:

---

There were fewer poor people during W's 8 years, as more people moved up the social ladder.

The Rich got richer because that's what they do. Make smart choices, continue to work hard, it pays off.

Those who make poor choices, spend their $$ unwisely, continue down the same path....

---

That statement is a lie or ignorance. I don't know whether you just make flat-out statements you've herad elsewhere or make them to get a rise, but it's 100% wrong.

The STANDARD OF LIVING (remember that?) went down during Dumbya's time in office. Because of deregulation, tax cuts for the rich and outsourcing, the standard of living went down. It has little or nothing to do with "poor choices", jobs disappeared which will never reappear, and wages fell behind the cost of living (remember that one?), ergo the gap we've been talking about.

Corporations paid less taxes while people earned less. I posted where Jimmy Buffet did an experiment and discovered his workers paid MORE TAXES than he did, although they earned far less. Families who had homes and lives were made poorer; there are more homeless FAMILIES now than there were since the Great Depression. Dumbya worked for the rich; the rest of us suffered.

Until corporations pay their fair share of taxes, it will worsen. Until some kind of industry is either brought back to the country or created, there will be fewer jobs. More people will suffer.

If you cared to educate yourself you'd realize what a lie the statement is.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Lowering taxes DIDN'T bring jobs back. Job growth under 8 years of Bush and his "low taxes"? 1 million jobs, total. Under 8 years of "tax-n-spend" Clinton? 23 million. Under that horrible Carter, in just 4 years? 5 million.

Obama lowered taxes. Where are all those jobs? He just disproved your little theory.

Also, since 1920, Democrats have held the presidency for 42 years, while Republicans have had it for 48 of those years. Yet in that time, the Democrats have created 65% of the jobs. Now, if they're the party that's always raising taxes, then isn't that proof positive that RAISING taxes creates jobs?

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:
I think the key is that sometimes the seller cannot inflate the price to recoup the profit because it will dent sales (sorry HK). So this works out as a tax on shareholders/capitalists, not on consumers. Another quote:

"Most markets fall between these two extremes, and ultimately the incidence of tax is shared between producers and consumers in varying proportions."

Interesting stuff, I wish we had an economist on the forum (a real one, not an ideological one).

Heads should roll

---

Quote:

---

Oil companies make less off a the sale of oil than do the Governments, which simply taxes the living hell out of the product, receiving a massive windfall of profit for zero investment. Great scam, if you can run it. And every Gov't does run that scam.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:

It's getting less and less possible for me to post on this board without being misunderstood and mischaracterized.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
*ALL* the jobs? Really? 23 million jobs created in the public sector under Clinton, huh (and all while slashing the military, remember!)? And somehow, while DRASTICALLY increasing both the size and the cost of government, Dubya managed to only create a million jobs in eight years?

Sounds like y'all just really really suck at getting anything for your money!

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
It's getting less and less possible for me to post on this board without being misunderstood and mischaracterized.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:

Why are you apologizing to me, however ironically? Look: I was critiquing Kirkules' characterization of what he called a "free market" when at the same time he states as fact that corporations can simply raise prices as high as they wish to deal with increased costs. That's not a free market, is it? .

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kirkules:
...you made it about your hatred of corporations...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
It's pointless.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Frem is correct, Capitalism is a religion, as is Socialism.

There is a lot of economics that is not religious, but the most religious of all is a belief in gold. It has no economic basis in fact. I suspect this is only used as a mechanism to lure sheep into poverty away from the real economy

---

Quote:

---

There is no freedom in Socialism. None. Ever.

---

Quote:

---

Frem is correct, Capitalism is a religion, as is Socialism.

There is a lot of economics that is not religious, but the most religious of all is a belief in gold. It has no economic basis in fact. I suspect this is only used as a mechanism to lure sheep into poverty away from the real economy

---

Quote:

---

But gold makes very poor weapons and bullets, it's too soft.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
That's a nasty looking chart. As someone who used to read charts professionally, that's sobering. It's a RoC, and as such, it goes way negative, and then comes back to 0, but not out of trend. Post it again a year from now, meanwhile, I'd say run for the hills is what I would read. I don't think it has a lot to do with Obama one way or another, I just think that's scary.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

NO freedom in socialism for anyone.

Who does socialism free, Sig. Who ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
That's a nasty looking chart. As someone who used to read charts professionally, that's sobering. It's a RoC, and as such, it goes way negative, and then comes back to 0, but not out of trend. Post it again a year from now, meanwhile, I'd say run for the hills is what I would read. I don't think it has a lot to do with Obama one way or another, I just think that's scary.


Byte

Quote:

---

But gold makes very poor weapons and bullets, it's too soft.

---

Um, Bullets are typically made of lead.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Of course, it's not really an uptick in jobs, since it's a RoC, it's a stopping of the falling.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Who does capitalism free? Who?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
That's a nasty looking chart. As someone who used to read charts professionally, that's sobering. It's a RoC, and as such, it goes way negative, and then comes back to 0, but not out of trend. Post it again a year from now, meanwhile, I'd say run for the hills is what I would read. I don't think it has a lot to do with Obama one way or another, I just think that's scary.


Byte

Quote:

---

But gold makes very poor weapons and bullets, it's too soft.

---

Um, Bullets are typically made of lead.

---

Lead core, usually, covered by an alloy. Hence "full metal jacket" rounds.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:
I think the key is that sometimes the seller cannot inflate the price to recoup the profit because it will dent sales (sorry HK). So this works out as a tax on shareholders/capitalists, not on consumers. Another quote:

"Most markets fall between these two extremes, and ultimately the incidence of tax is shared between producers and consumers in varying proportions."

Interesting stuff, I wish we had an economist on the forum (a real one, not an ideological one).

Heads should roll

---

It's getting less and less possible for me to post on this board without being misunderstood and mischaracterized.

Why are you apologizing to me, however ironically? Look: I was critiquing Kirkules' characterization of what he called a "free market" when at the same time he states as fact that corporations can simply raise prices as high as they wish to deal with increased costs. That's not a free market, is it? I was critiquing his position. Critiquing his system as having a strangle-hold on consumers. That is all. Then he comes back blathering about how I must be a socialist because I think he lives in a fairytale.

Now you take what I've said as some kind of denial that supply and demand ever determine anything. WTF? As I say, it's becoming impossible to have a conversation around here.

Until people like Kirkules stop pretending the status quo is some species of "free market," as long as men like him defend the corporatist system, there is not going to be a free market, okay? Is that plain enough for you? Sure, some things are a matter of competition, like entertainment, but the really big things like oil are simply not subject to market forces until they jack the prices by several 100%. But at that point you can hardly call that market forces, that's a parasite killing its host!

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

---