Signs of the Times - and a question

[whell]

Originally Posted by bobabode

Blah, blah, blah! Cogent enough for you?LOL. Lighten up whellie.

Yup, I guess I was expecting too much from you. Sorry boobie.

[whell]

Originally Posted by JJIII

To the original question, research the "Fair Tax" and see what it does for business.

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServ...owFairTaxWorks

and here...

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServ...ut_faq_answers

and here...

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServ...name=about_faq

I really appreciate the work these guys do. As stated in an earlier post, this would synch with our need to get the politics and government picking winners and losers out of the tax code. It would also create a stable and predictable environment. Unfortunately, I suspect their message would fall on deaf ears for many around these parts.

[bobabode]

I did notice that your real agenda was to advocate for a reduction the capital gains rate with a less than well reasoned argument. Maybe it's just me that thinks you're funning with us whellie? You could try the Big Bill gambit.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by HatchetJack

Whatever Rob, I have 2000 Ford Taurus, a 2005 Dodge Magnum, a 1999
Toyota tacoma and a 1993 Toyota Camry. The Toyota's are far and away
better designed cars.
All indications are that GM is once again headed for bankruptcy due to high
labor and retirement costs. I just don't think it's fair that the taxpayers,
most who make far less in income and benefits should help to bail them
out again. They are never again going to be able to compete in a world
market against non union car companies that put out a better product because
they are not saddled down trying to fund union wages and 4-1 people who
no longer even work. The odds are not in our favor under the new market.
Auto companies are just one example.

So, the answer is to drag everyone else down? We're all supposed to just accept the lowest common denominator? Competing for ever lower compensation? Wow! What a great path for the American people to follow.

And, you still haven't answered my other two questions either;

What does a higher rate of pay have to do with product quality?

How is the quality of the product NOT the responsibility of the company producing it?

Dave

[whell]

Originally Posted by bobabode

I did notice that your real agenda was to advocate for a reduction the capital gains rate with a less than well reasoned argument. Maybe it's just me that thinks you're funning with us whellie? You could try the Big Bill gambit.

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?

[d-ray657]

So JJ, your fair tax website locked up my computer. It's a right wing conspiracy I tell ya.

Whell, some of the communities around here that have provided tax abatements, but rely on property tax as a means of funding their operations, have found budget difficulties because a significant amount of landowners did not contribute to operations.

The government has significant responsibilities, beyond providing the infrastructure that I have mentioned, I believe that the safety net is an essential government function. Those responsibilities require funding. It seems to me that your argument flows from the laffer curve, which is a huge culprit in our current deficit woes. It is counter-intuitive to believe that a tax cut will increase the revenue necessary to sustain government operations, and the deficit history of Reagan, Bush, and yes even Obama (remember he has cut taxes) shows that it is counter to reality as well.

Regards,

D-Ray

[JJIII]

Awww, You're just trying to dissuade people from clicking on the links.Sorry to hear that Don. I just went back to all three links and had no trouble at all.

I do think that some of the members here will have their brain "locked up" concerning the Fair Tax though!

[whell]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

The government has significant responsibilities, beyond providing the infrastructure that I have mentioned, I believe that the safety net is an essential government function. Those responsibilities require funding. It seems to me that your argument flows from the laffer curve, which is a huge culprit in our current deficit woes. It is counter-intuitive to believe that a tax cut will increase the revenue necessary to sustain government operations, and the deficit history of Reagan, Bush, and yes even Obama (remember he has cut taxes) shows that it is counter to reality as well.

Regards,

D-Ray

Seems to me that the more folks we have working and paying taxes, the better and stronger the safety net can be. On the other hand, the safety need needs to be something we can afford. I don't want to drift the discussion into a rationalization of our social priorities, but we know our current systems are trending towards being under-funded. The demographic realities of lower birth rates and a rising and retirement population don't bode well for our current set up and funding mechanism.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...-spending.html

At least, in the short term and maybe for the long haul, we need to find a way to get more folks into the work force to, if nothing else, pay for our social priorities.

Laffer curve? Maybe. I was thinking more along the lines of supply and demand. Right now the cost of capital appears to high, and the price has short term volatility. Its not a "buyers market" for capital. That's what I'd like to see changed, so we can start converting capital into products and get folks working again.

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by whell

[snip]Laffer curve? Maybe. I was thinking more along the lines of supply and demand. Right now the cost of capital appears to high, and the price has short term volatility. Its not a "buyers market" for capital. That's what I'd like to see changed, so we can start converting capital into products and get folks working again.

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

[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.