No More Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthiest

Originally Posted by canndo

Canned food. Except for any regulations surrounding it, I can fund my own canning operation including marketing out of my savings and investments. I need no outside funds, if I can find the demand for my particular products then I can produce more and more of my canned goods. If I need no outside funds then I need no "rich" person to produce.

Trust me, there are a ton of regulations involved in canned foods.
And you are right, if you have the capital, you can do all that, but then what you don't realize is, you have now become a capitalist. I'm not suggesting you will be greedy with your new found wealth, none the less, you will be considered a capitalist.

Originally Posted by beenthere

Trust me, there are a ton of regulations involved in canned foods.
And you are right, if you have the capital, you can do all that, but then what you don't realize is, you have now become a capitalist. I'm not suggesting you will be greedy with your new found wealth, none the less, you will be considered a capitalist.

Beenthere? I am on my fourth moderatly successful company, I understand the elements of doing such things and I realize full well what you are saying. We are talking about demand vs supply. You are still maintaining that there cannot be supply without capital, now this may well be true in the extreme but as far as needing rich people to fund enterprise, that is untrue. It certainly helps, some enterprises may well not be born if not for large amounts of initial capital but as I have said even that can be raised from those other than rich. You have not managed to demonstrate your contentions.

Originally Posted by canndo

Beenthere? I am on my fourth moderatly successful company, I understand the elements of doing such things and I realize full well what you are saying. We are talking about demand vs supply. You are still maintaining that there cannot be supply without capital, now this may well be true in the extreme but as far as needing rich people to fund enterprise, that is untrue. It certainly helps, some enterprises may well not be born if not for large amounts of initial capital but as I have said even that can be raised from those other than rich. You have not managed to demonstrate your contentions.

Canndo, when you bring investors into the debate of supply and demand, you're shifting your argument, venture capitalism is a whole different animal. Individual capitalists and partnerships were the backbone of our free trade markets, venture capitalists and corporatism is what drove them out of the market.

I contend that demand alone cannot fulfill our market needs, and the same can be said of supply, a thriving economy is best when the two are balanced.

I assume you're standing on the principle that demand can prosper with or without supply.

Originally Posted by beenthere

Canndo, when you bring investors into the debate of supply and demand, you're shifting your argument, venture capitalism is a whole different animal. Individual capitalists and partnerships were the backbone of our free trade markets, venture capitalists and corporatism is what drove them out of the market.

I contend that demand alone cannot fulfill our market needs, and the same can be said of supply, a thriving economy is best when the two are balanced.

I assume you're standing on the principle that demand can prosper with or without supply.

No, I am saying that demand creates supply, of one sort or another, legal or otherwise, funded or unfunded. Balance? well, seeing as how many make their money from a certain unbalance of supply and demand I am not sure what you mean. We are still contending that the rich do not "give" us jobs, the rich are not needed. I think you presume I am some sort of communist or anarchist or something - I am not. I am simply taking issue with your, and many other's insistance that the rich are an integral part of our economy when in fact they are as much an aberation or artifact of the system as anything else. We may need to tolerate the rich but we needn't worship them.

Originally Posted by canndo

No, I am saying that demand creates supply, of one sort or another, legal or otherwise, funded or unfunded. Balance? well, seeing as how many make their money from a certain unbalance of supply and demand I am not sure what you mean. We are still contending that the rich do not "give" us jobs, the rich are not needed. I think you presume I am some sort of communist or anarchist or something - I am not. I am simply taking issue with your, and many other's insistance that the rich are an integral part of our economy when in fact they are as much an aberation or artifact of the system as anything else. We may need to tolerate the rich but we needn't worship them.

Well, I have to disagree with you that the rich are not a vital component of our current economy.
As I stated many times, we are caught in the trap of government involved corporatism, and that is the very reason small business no longer makeup the brunt of our local free market suppliers.

And no, I don't consider you a communist or anarchist, I just understand that you and I are on a complete different page when it comes to what direction our economy needs to change.

I would like to see it go back to a simple free market, do away with the Home Depots, Lowes and Walmarts.
And the only way we're going to achieve that, is to get government out of our free markets and the pockets of big business.

Are you more of a proponent of a centralized government?

Originally Posted by canndo

I will restate my point however.

Only workers create wealth
Only workers create demand
Only demand creates jobs

therefore, reducing taxes on the wealthy serves to...... reduce taxes on the wealthy.

wealth is not currency or money, wealth is land, and capital of which the workers have nearly none. workers dont create land or capital, they work. they sell their time and sweat for what they can get in the hopes that someday they might get a shot at the big time.

only workers create demand? i never bought a yacht, yet yachts are made and sold eery day, i never bought a european sports car and yet i see them drivin around...

No poor person ever hired me to trim their trees, clean their pool or dig them a new basement. no poor person or "worker" ever paid me to build a "real liflelike rustic style barn" on their 15 acre estate that never grew a crop, or raised a single head of livestock.

the wealthy, due to their wealth, are able to indulge their whims, like payin me to build a barn as a decoration, or trim their orange trees whose fruit is never picked. poor folks dont do these kinds of retarded things because they cant afford to. when you squeeze the rich, they can easily spend less simply by NOT indulging their fancies, and as a result, fewer swimming pools get built, less art gets bought, fewer cars get motored around the country and thus need fewer repairs, fewer yachts get built fewer fancy barn shaped decorations get built, and fewer wineries, organic lettuce farms or "cattle ranches" are started for the whims of hollywood dilettantes with grand imaginations and no real agricultural knowledge. it's sad yes, but our economy is largely dependent on paris hilton wasting the wealth her grandparents worked hard to build, and Keanu Reeves deciding to become a vintner in napa. Poor folks are poor, thus they have no capital to invest in land, livestock or luxury cars. if the rich stop buying these things and "live simply, so that others might simply live" people without capital will still have no capital, people with no land still have no land, and the wealthy will simply gain more wealth by holding onto their profits rather than spending them on retarded flights of fancy!

Originally Posted by cannabineer

My understanding is that VAT is assessed on every transaction, basically a sales tax. It's in addition to income taxation.
I personally find double taxation an offensive practice. Trouble is, VAT without income taxation is regressive because it leaves capital gains completely untouched, which is a bias in favor of all those with not just money but capital.
A completely flat income tax is fair to a first approximation, but I would prefer a step-flat system that flatly taxes all income above a given poverty line. cn

You could argue that the people on or under this line are more likely to use alot more public services than someone vastly above, so this is why I came to the conclusion that a flat tax overall is the most equitable solution. I mean on a low income, it might be a nominal "symbolic" payment, but at least Mr Monolopy Man wouldn't be able to complain they don't pay their share.

However as Obama would say, my opinion is ever "evolving" as a practical solution is what I seek, not an ideologically based one.

Originally Posted by Dr Kynes

wealth is not currency or money, wealth is land, and capital of which the workers have nearly none. workers dont create land or capital, they work. they sell their time and sweat for what they can get in the hopes that someday they might get a shot at the big time.

only workers create demand? i never bought a yacht, yet yachts are made and sold eery day, i never bought a european sports car and yet i see them drivin around...

No poor person ever hired me to trim their trees, clean their pool or dig them a new basement. no poor person or "worker" ever paid me to build a "real liflelike rustic style barn" on their 15 acre estate that never grew a crop, or raised a single head of livestock.

the wealthy, due to their wealth, are able to indulge their whims, like payin me to build a barn as a decoration, or trim their orange trees whose fruit is never picked. poor folks dont do these kinds of retarded things because they cant afford to. when you squeeze the rich, they can easily spend less simply by NOT indulging their fancies, and as a result, fewer swimming pools get built, less art gets bought, fewer cars get motored around the country and thus need fewer repairs, fewer yachts get built fewer fancy barn shaped decorations get built, and fewer wineries, organic lettuce farms or "cattle ranches" are started for the whims of hollywood dilettantes with grand imaginations and no real agricultural knowledge. it's sad yes, but our economy is largely dependent on paris hilton wasting the wealth her grandparents worked hard to build, and Keanu Reeves deciding to become a vintner in napa. Poor folks are poor, thus they have no capital to invest in land, livestock or luxury cars. if the rich stop buying these things and "live simply, so that others might simply live" people without capital will still have no capital, people with no land still have no land, and the wealthy will simply gain more wealth by holding onto their profits rather than spending them on retarded flights of fancy!

No rich person ever sold me a fucking thing I didn't want to buy.