Signs of the Times - and a question - Page 7

d-ray657 · #61 08-22-2012, 12:36 PM

But the tax is only on profits, not on all of the operating revenues. Is that not correct?

Regards,

D-Ray

BlueStreak · #62 08-22-2012, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by merrylander

At near zero interest rates it is not a buyers market?

Yeah, really. That was my first thought. What's next, businessmen expecting banks to pay them to take the money and pay it back if they feel like it?

Dave

BlueStreak · #63 08-22-2012, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d-ray657

But the tax is only on profits, not on all of the operating revenues. Is that not correct?

Regards,

D-Ray

Yep. So..........

Dave

BlueStreak · #64 08-22-2012, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whell

Businesses are not seeing those kind of rates, particularly small businesses. Due to the rise of bad debt many small to medium size businesses don't have access to the credit they used to because the lender's sphinkters have tightened considerably. A $100K loan is in the 6 - 7% range in today's market, if they can get the loan approved. Then of course if they are successful converting the loan asset into a product, there's another 10 - 15% tax on top of any gains.

If tight sphincters mean less risky loans and thus less chance of another "bailout" then more power to the sphincter tightener. 6-7% doesn't seem all that unreasonable to me at all. So, tell me why these guys expect everyone to throw money (and unquestioning obedience) at them again..................

piece-itpete · #65 08-22-2012, 12:59 PM

The more expensive, the more likely to be off-shored.

Pete

bobabode · #66 08-22-2012, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whell

You're consistent, I'll give you that much. The above is typical from you: attempt to discredit the argument, but offer nothing of substance in the process.

I've offered ideas, even given example of how they've been tried by Dem and Repubs alike on a more limited scale, and asked why they wouldn't work on a broader scale. It's been suggested circumstantially why they wouldn't work, mostly based on a distrust of business leaders. Of course, the alternative is, as I've stated in another post, continue to let the moneyed interest pay tribute to elected officials in the form of campaign contributions so that the government wins, some of the moneyed interests win, and we continue to get the shaft.

But I've received no attempts at serious rebuttal or offer of alternative ideas. But I do get posts like yours: vapid, lacking in any substance, and sometimes laced with attempts to be insulting or condescension. I've received responses like this even after pointing out that I'm trying to keep the conversation above petty politics.

So, is it possible to have a discussion like this, or should I just lower my expectations and move on?

Whell, We can toss vapid insults back and forth till the cows come home or you can try to engage in honest debate. Your prickly vague objections to some one pointing out flaws in your logic doesn't improve your standing or bolster your argument. I pointed up your fairly quick descent towards a vacuous theory of yours and the moneyed interests in general that a reduction in capital gains would some how magically fund a these stimulus zones. It appeared to me that you were once again being convoluted at best or simply trying to come sideways at the notion that trickle down economics was not a failed doctrine. We undoubtably disagree on most things political and in regards to economics just about everything. Feel free to ignore my observations and project your feelings of persecution but don't expect me to feel sorry for you.

The way I see this thread was as a simple attempt at justfying trickle down theory with the ever present easter bunny idea that we need to eliminate the capital gains tax. All the rest seems to be window dressing or subterfuge. I don't agree with your premise in the first place, so why debate it with you? (Other than to poke the ocassional hole in a specious argument.)

Feel free to parse it and toss insults whellie, I wouldn't expect any less from you. Just don't expect me to bow out in silence from what is a very important topic. I just happen to believe you are wrong, live with it or prove me wrong with some realistic and honest approaches. Not some stale and vague understanding of the faied trickle down theory and a duplicitous contention that we need to unshackle the rich from their already all time low rate of taxes. You are a staunch anti tax for the rich proponent so where would the money come from? Cutting capital gains will not float everyones boat. It will however allow the rich to buy ever bigger yachts.

Is it just that I don't agree with your pet theory or do you have some so far hidden qualifications that I've missed? After all I'm just a dumbass nail pounder (actually I used pneumatics). I did get a chuckle out of your misspelling of rote BTW I for one don't use spellcheck because i want to be clear and do understand the particular meaning of the words that I choose to use. I've laid my cards on the table, how about you? Any schooling or on the job training that makes you an authority worth listening to?