Michael Moore Films

Discussion in 'The Guru's Pub' started by humonculus1987, Sep 11, 2011.

  1. Kaleid

    Kaleid Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,526
    Likes Received:
    188
    GPU:
    MSI 5700 8GB
    Really, what's the other side? Give the rich taxcuts and they'll create jobs, that it will trickle down?

    Didn't even trickle down during REAGAN:

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    The simple fact that there are more 5000 bank lobbyists @ DC alone should be a warning signal to people.
     
  2. Texter

    Texter Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    3,144
    Likes Received:
    234
    GPU:
    Club3d GF6800GT 256MB AGP
    CNN, Reuters and Bloomberg aren't exactly blogs...
     
  3. nexu

    nexu Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,182
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    HD4870 512MB (@795/1085)
    If you claim they are one sided bs. Than be kind enough to provide non one sided bs sources. Which i'm sure you cannot.
     
  4. wootwoot

    wootwoot Master Guru

    Messages:
    370
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    GTX295
    I'll just use common sense, the bases for most of those links. Is the idea that the rich and businesses should have to pay a greater percentage of their income than everyone else. That is a immoral idea. No one should have to pay a greater percentage than anyone else.

    So one sided it is.
     

  5. PR-0927

    PR-0927 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,659
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    EVGA GeForce GTX 680 SC+

    That's not even the issue, most of the time. Currently, huge corporations (roughly 33, IIRC - GE is a prominent one of these) aren't paying taxes AT ALL.

    At all. As in, they are paying less than everyone, because they've gone through loopholes.

    And the uber-rich? They're actually paying at a LOWER rate than the lower-income.

    This is just plain dumb.

    Additionally, let's pretend 20% of your income is taxed, for everyone. That 20% can cripple a lower-income individual. How about a millionaire? Hell, they're still sitting pretty. Still living the luxurious lifestyle with virtually no change in their spending habits.

    By the way, the majority of Americans support increasing taxes on the uber-rich. That's the top 1% of the population. THE TOP ONE PERCENT. If you don't believe me, go read Reuters, NYTimes, BBC, CNN, etc. You'll find plenty of polls referenced proving this correct.

    Also, I think every American should always have this in the back of their minds:

    http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph


    - PR-0927
     
  6. humonculus1987

    humonculus1987 Banned

    Messages:
    484
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    evga GeForce GTX560 Ti
    Damn I love those type of posts. So much information I find out every day in this thread.
     
  7. nexu

    nexu Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,182
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    HD4870 512MB (@795/1085)
    I think your common sense is broken than. Since they aren't paying a greater percentage, as where some doesn't even pay anything at all thanks to clever bookkeeping tricks and tax loopholes.

    Again, provide some sources like Kaleid did. Instead of playing it down to "ow i use my common sense".
     
  8. wootwoot

    wootwoot Master Guru

    Messages:
    370
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    GTX295
    No those claims are usually they didn't pay one specific tax, for some time period. Usually doesn't include why or give the information that if taxes are owed they get paid eventually.

    and these loopholes, what are they? Why do they exist?

    According to what?

    Making the claim about capital gains vs income tax?

    It should be lower than 20% imo.

    So? Want to live a better life, make more money.

    Doesn't matter what they support. Our form of government was established to prevent tyranny of the majority.
     
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2011
  9. Kaleid

    Kaleid Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,526
    Likes Received:
    188
    GPU:
    MSI 5700 8GB
    USA has a tyranny of the minority. The ultra-rich who run the show and the politicians bend over to. Greed has poisoned everything.
     
  10. wootwoot

    wootwoot Master Guru

    Messages:
    370
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    GTX295
    Those evil rich people wanting to keep their money.
     

  11. Kaleid

    Kaleid Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,526
    Likes Received:
    188
    GPU:
    MSI 5700 8GB
    The unfunded taxcuts which mostly benefit the rich has created debt for everyone to pay - with interest. And as the links above show they are even richer than before the 2008 collapse. When gov should have bailed out the indebted people they of course gave trillions to the already ultra-rich. This is madness, because why would you help the healthiest patients on the hospital?

    "I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
    - Thomas Jefferson

    "America has a strong economy and a surplus.... Now is the time to reform the tax code and share some of the surplus with the people who pay the bills."
    --George W. Bush, nomination acceptance speech, 3 August 2000

    "This is an impressive crowd -- the haves and the have-mores. Some people call you the elites; I call you my base."
    --George W. Bush, at the annual Al Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner, 19 October 2000

    $500,000: The average tax reduction for people earning more than $10 million a year thanks to President Bush's tax cuts, according to new data showing the cuts "have significantly lowered the tax burden on the richest Americans.":
    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/05/business/05tax.html

    Average family incomes, after adjusting for inflation, fell to $70,700 in 2004, a drop of 2.3 percent when compared with 2001. That was the weakest showing since a decline of 11.3 percent from 1989 to 1992, a period that also covered a recession. The average incomes had soared by 17.3 percent in the 1998-2001 period and 12.3 percent from 1995 to 1998 as the country enjoyed the longest economic expansion in history. (yahoo news)

    "There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning." --

    Warren Buffett, CNN Interview, May 25 2005

    "Extent of Americans' Suffering Under George W. Bush Revealed by Census Data"
    While Bush was president, median income declined, poverty increased, childhood poverty increased even more dramatically, and there was an upsurge in Americans without health insurance."
    http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/09/closing_the_book_on_the_bush_legacy.php
     
  12. wootwoot

    wootwoot Master Guru

    Messages:
    370
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    GTX295
    The tax cuts did not create any debt, and tax increases do not increase revenue.

    Spending created the debt and the only thing thats going to help is to cut spending.
     
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2011
  13. scheherazade

    scheherazade Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,051
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    fullHDs
    That is drastically over simplified.


    All costs, in all areas, are labor.

    You buy an item, you paid :
    -$labor
    -$materials (electricity, durable components, etc)

    Those materials come from another company, which pays :
    -$labor
    -$materials (electricity, durable components, etc)

    And their materials come from other companies, which pay :
    -$labor
    -$materials (electricity, durable components, etc)

    At every stage of any product, there is a labor cost.
    The remaining materials cost breaks down into labor and materials.

    Every time money changes hands, up the supply chain, part of the materials cost is widdled away as labor, until all materials cost is labor - hence all ANY cost is labor.

    What that means is, everything you spend money on, is someone else's income.
    Everything they spend, is other people's income.
    And so on and so forth.

    "You don't pay the earth, you pay people".

    This matters because :

    If the government spends money, all of it will become income as it passes from person to person.

    Each time it exchanges hands, a percentage will be taxed and returned to the government.

    Hence, for example with a 25% tax rate, 1 dollar spent :
    Person A gets 1 dollar : 0.25 back in taxes, 0.75 spent on goods from person B
    Person B gets 0.75 dollars : 0.187 back in taxes, 0.56 spent on goods from person C
    Person C gets 0.56 dollars : 0.14 back in taxes, 0.42 spent on goods from person D
    Person D gets 0.42 dollars : .105 back in taxes, 0.315 spent on goods from person E
    Person E gets 0.315 dollars : .078 back in taxes, 0.236 spent on goods from person F
    Person F gets 0.236 dollars : .059 back in taxes, 0.177 spent on goods from person G
    Person G gets 0.177 dollars : .044 back in taxes, 0.132 spent on goods from person H
    ... And so on and so forth

    See how every time money changes hands, a portion goes back to the government?
    This happens over and over and over, until basically everything returns to the government.

    Even if 50% of people don't pay income tax, that just means that all their money went on goods, and the next guy just paid it in his income taxes from selling more goods.

    (This is the case regardless. Whether poor pays no taxes from low income, or rich pays no taxes from deductions. Difference being only that poor technically can't afford to eat if they pay taxes - but rich don't pay because they are friends with the people in charge and had the tax code customized for themselves.)

    The tax rate simply determines how soon the money returns. Does it take 3 steps to get 90% of it back, or 6 steps, or 10 steps, etc. Someone skipping on taxes just adds 1 step to the length. Either way, it's coming back.

    Lower taxes do, however, make sure that the money changes hands between people a few more times before it comes back to the government.

    If the government spends more, it gets more back in taxes.
    If it spends less, it gets back less in taxes.
    Either way, everything that goes out, comes back in.


    With more spending, the only difference is to the people that get paid along the way, did they buy bread, or did they go hungry.

    You can't "reduce spending" to dig yourself out of the hole - less spent is less tax income and less deficit - no change in debt.

    You can't "increase spending" to dig yourself out of the hole - more spent is more tax income and more deficit - no change in debt.







    But there's still more to it.

    Because we spend money on foreign made goods, not all of our money returns to us in income taxes. A lot goes overseas.
    Think about the day-to-day goods that you buy, and how many are made in other nations.
    When you buy goods from overseas, you basically take that fractional dollar, and remove it from the tax waterfall.
    That remainder will for the time being, no longer contribute to our tax income.

    Now, because dollars are only good where dollars are used, this money that went overseas will again be spent in the U.S. ... eventually.

    Typically, it is spent on purchasing stocks.
    This doesn't help us as much as other purchases would (U.S. goods), because foreign stock ownership means that profits/dividends are then paid out overseas, only to be spent on more stocks, and more profits/dividends paid out overseas, etc, etc, etc...

    Regardless, that stock purchase put money back into the U.S. economy - so that's good.
    BUT, it cost us ownership and influence.

    There's some money circulating overseas at any given time. The effect of that is hard to judge.

    So long as the rate of money going overseas is the same as money coming back to the U.S., then it's just a constant reduction, and isn't that important.

    If the rate going out is higher than coming in, then it's a money bleed that is affecting our tax income.
    Or if the money returning is not taxed (eg, maybe the foregner stock purchases), then that money (even though it has returned) has stopped contributing to our tax income, until it's spent again on something that is taxed.

    This goes back to the issue of taxation.
    The more the government taxes, the more of the initial state wages returns back immediately to the government (1st person's tax withholdings).
    Every exchange along the way, has a probability of being spent overseas, and can take that dollar out of U.S. circulation.
    The longer you wait to re-circulate the money into the government, the greater the chance it won't return this time around.





    Then there is the issue of perceived value, inflation, deflation.

    If you throw money at the economy (to the consumers), initially there will be a spike in demand with more people willing to spend.

    If you take money away from the economy (from the consumers), initially there will be a drop in demand.

    Changes in demand will mainly cause one of two things.
    1) change in capacity
    2) change in price

    The value of money is a human factor.
    Things don't have an intrinsic price.
    The question is : how much is it worth TO YOU.

    As a business, you may have enough work to keep you busy 12 hours a day.
    If you get a spike in demand, and now you have 18 hours worth of work, what would you do?
    1) Grow your business to meet the demand?
    2) Raise your prices until you have 12 hours of demand again?

    In the end, there are only so many vendors, and so many people. You won't work like crazy when you don't have to.
    Immediately, you get some more sales, some more business.
    But eventually, it just causes higher prices, and higher wages
    (not much changes)


    Take the same situation, but as a drop in demand. Should you :
    1) Shrink your business?
    2) Lower prices?

    Initially, you get less business, people get laid off.
    Eventually, people get used to lower prices, and lower wages, and everything goes back to normal.
    (not much changes)

    What this means is that simply having less money in the economy isn't going to cause suffering.

    The suffering from less money comes from a lack of deflation.

    However, referring back to the foreign held money, THAT is where U.S. inflation/deflation matters.

    Given a fixed amount of money overseas, (in regards to spending that money in the U.S.) if U.S. currency deflates, foreigners now have more valuable holdings.
    If the U.S. currency inflates, foreigners have less valuable holdings.

    You can try to fix "less money in the economy" with deflation, but then you just get bought-out by USD-holding foreigners quicker.






    The U.S. is very scared of deflation.
    This has to do with our high personal debt load.

    If you buy a house for 100'000 in 1990, while a car is worth 5000.
    Then money deflates. Wages drop to 1/5. Costs drop to 1/5.
    BUT YOU STILL OWE 100'000.
    ...
    Your debt just became the same as if you had borrowed 500'000 in 1990 - and you're in trouble.

    And this is why the U.S. loves inflation. As money reduces in value, your debt reduces in value.

    Notice that loan rates are always above the inflation rate.
    This is so that they can make profits.

    At 3% inflation, and 5% loan rate, that's :
    1.0 * 0.97 * 1.05 = 1.8% profit for the bank per year.

    Personally, I see the solution to inflation/deflation as "dating money".
    So a loan in 1990 would be paid back in 1990 dollars.
    Every time you pay in, your amount paid is interpreted as older money.
    Bank rates would simply have to be converted to the profit rate, rather than interest rate.
    Eg. 5% loan -> 1.8% loan. Bank makes the same amount of profit, but now it's unaffected by inflation/deflation.
    But I digress...








    But going back to the demand issue.

    Giving money to consumers will temporarily increase demand until inflation balances out prices.

    But no business will invest in capacity (jobs/labor, etc) knowing that the increase in demand is temporary. So the bottom->up approach doesn't do anything in the long run.
    (It will temporarily help some folks, though).

    The top->down approach is equally bad.
    As a business owner, who is facing low demand, and has more capacity than demand - why make jobs for employees that will be sitting on their hands watching you-tube, because there is no demand?
    If you give businesses money, they just pocket it for a rainy day.

    Note :
    About personal income taxes for the wealthy. These have zero to do with jobs.
    Wealthy people aren't spending their personal income on making jobs.
    They're spending their business income on making jobs.
    Two different things.
    This is the whole reason to be incorporated. You separate yourself from your business.
    Your business pays yourself a salary.
    This isn't a lemonade stand where 'however much suzy's stand makes is however much suzy makes'.





    I ramble on.

    But what's the point?

    The point is :
    Changing taxes won't fix crap.
    Changing spending won't fix crap. (but may feed a few people)

    All we can do is spend our money in a way that minimizes suffering until prices and incomes re-adjust. (Which is why I prefer to not cut spending - so the gubbies and their kids can eat)

    -scheherazade
     
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2011
  14. fxmercenary

    fxmercenary Master Guru

    Messages:
    383
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    EVGA GTX 580 SC Edition
    Haha wow, this thread is a rollercoaster.

    Let me break this down for everyone here NOT in America!!1

    Americans are freaking RETARDED. We have this... delusion... That some day we are going to be rich too! So, like the media, who are actually rich, we defend the wealthy. Because we think they will be rich too someday.

    Americans are GREEDY. We are willing to step on, and trample children and stab each other, out in front of Wal-Marts, to save $12.00 on a blender in a day after thanksgiving sale. ( Funny, Thanks....Giving, a holiday to celebrate generosity, people kill each other the following morning out of greed and selfishness, Corporations and the Media love it!) Also, look at Healthcare, where Money. is actually MORE IMPORTANT. than LIFE. You can tell us that over and over, and we are actually ok with this!

    Americans are SELFISH. We are full of ourselves, go ahead, start up a thread about a problem or event in you country, Americans will show up and offer some bat-**** crazy advice, eventually de-railing your thread, turning it into a debate about America.

    Americans are PATRIOTS. We are proud of ourselves, and that we are number one in the world, God help us and you, if we ever fall out of 1st place on this planet. Afghanistan was invaded for it's trillions of dollars in lithium reserves (i-phone batteries, Toyota Prius batteries) and Iraq was revenge for George Bush Senior, and a strategic military position to influence and police the region. But don't mention this to one of us, because we gotta fight em over there so we don't gotta fight em over here!

    We, as a Nation, will collapse in on ourselves, because of our unwillingness to cooperate, our unwillingness to Evolve,

    we think we have it all right, that our current system is the best, and it just can't get any better. This will be our downfall.

    And yes, I am an American, born and raised. Why am I so different than the rest who posted here? Because I study American History, and I don't have Cable TV...

    Im a real American, you don't see us on TV, but we still exist!
     
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2011
  15. nexu

    nexu Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,182
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    HD4870 512MB (@795/1085)
    So true that on G3D forums. The recent thread about UK riot was a prime example of that.
     

  16. Kaleid

    Kaleid Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,526
    Likes Received:
    188
    GPU:
    MSI 5700 8GB
    Of course it creates/d debt. Had Bush instead raised the taxes during a time of war then all that borrowing might have been unnecessary as the system would have been pay-as-you-go.

    McCain's Economist: We Need Tax Increases
    "If you do nothing on the spending side, you're going to have to raise taxes whether you're a Republican, a Democrat or a Martian,"
    So how come, with this guy on board, the McCain campaign is still pushing tax cuts and more tax cuts even if they are fiscal s.u.i.c.i.d.e?
    "It's the brand," he said, "and you don't dilute the brand."
    http://crooksandliars.com/2008/09/13/mccains-economist-we-need-tax-rises/
    ______

    On 60 minutes..
    "One Republican brave enough to go public is David Stockman, President Reagan's budget director. He says all the Bush tax cuts should be eliminated - even those on the middle class.
    And he says his own Republican Party has gone too far with its anti-tax religion. "
    http://www*.cbsnews.c*om/stories*/2010/10/2*8/60minute*s/main6999*906.shtml
    ______
    Taxes must rise to fight budget deficit: Greenspan
    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/09/taxes-rise-fight-budget-deficit-greenspan/
     
  17. Brasky

    Brasky Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,243
    Likes Received:
    194
    GPU:
    ASUS 1080 Strix
    dude, kaleid, have you ever been to the u.s.? or are all these ideas and opinions you have about us formed over the plethora of internet crap that you seem to enjoy regurgitating? i mean, come on chuckles.

    also, why is it evil and wrong to want to be successful? are you people just happy living a meager existence with no great aspirations? and if so great, more power to you that you have found a way to enjoy life. sometimes it's nice to work hard and actually see a reward and have some pride in your work since you directly benefit from it.

    Everyone is selfish, not just the evil bad Americans who eat babies and would sell their own mother for a steak according to some of you.
     
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2011
  18. scheherazade

    scheherazade Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,051
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    fullHDs
    Is that a reference to rich paying more in taxes?

    If so, I think the issue is more that we people just want the rich to pay at least as much as the middle class do. At minimum close the tax loop holes. I don't care if they pay no more of a % than middle class.

    The whole point of being a nation is to have safety in numbers. Everyone pitching in for the good of all.

    It's one thing if people don't pitch in because they have nothing to pitch in with (no $ left over after buying food and shelter).

    And another if they don't pitch in because their friends in power tailored the rules so they don't have to.



    But this is merely a fairness issue - not a budget issue.
    Taxing isn't a magic bullet that will fix everything.

    Ultimately, incomes and prices need to re-balance themselves.
    It just takes time.

    The bigger problem is extra-economic forces throwing things out of whack in the short term, scaring people, and keeping them from spending.

    Things like housing/fuel/food speculation - causing commodity price spikes that take prices way outside the scope of what other things cost.
    Basically, we need regulation to prevent abuse. So economic forces can re-level the economy.

    Anyone with a crap-ton of money can make a crap-ton more.
    Just pick something, and buy all of it.
    All of a sudden there is no availability, and prices are sky high.
    Then slowly sell it back for way more.

    Investors did this with fuel, then with housing, even with food.

    Very wealthy people, with too much money to ever have to worry, regardless of what happens. But with no regard for what their actions do to the nation as a whole.

    -scheherazade
     
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2011
  19. Brasky

    Brasky Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,243
    Likes Received:
    194
    GPU:
    ASUS 1080 Strix
    in the global economy, a flat tax and closing corporate loopholes will just cause companies to take the jobs they do have out of the country. like GE, whose CEO is on the american jobs committee, who just decided to invest in a huge plant in china, rather than america. and it seems like instead of countries, we have companies.
     
  20. Kaleid

    Kaleid Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,526
    Likes Received:
    188
    GPU:
    MSI 5700 8GB
    Internet crap as in information? How people actually live, with more poor than ever?

    Who says it is evil? But like many things it's better in moderation, greed can go too far. And fact is,

    The rich need for the people to succeed, because too much poverty will lead into a class of citizens with too little buying power. And poverty costs societies:
    http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/25/news/poor.php

    Even in my own country the tendency is to help those who need it the least, whilst kicking on the poor and the sick, as if these people didn't have enough problems.

    "The table is tilted, the game is rigged" Carlin

    The simple fact that the "bottom" 50% of Americans own about 2.5% of the wealth should be a concern for everyone.

    Stop Coddling the Super-Rich
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html?_r=2

    Minnesota Government Shuts Down As Republicans Refuse To Raise Taxes On Millionaires
    http://thinkprogress.org/economy/20...nt-shuts-down-republicans-taxes-millionaires/

    In House, Many Spoke With One Voice: Lobbyists’
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/us/politics/15health.html?_r=1

    Richest tenth own 85% of world's assets
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article661055.ece

    World's richest got even richer last year: report 2008
    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0437922320080904

    U.S. Wages: Lower than 1996
    http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/jan2006/nf20060117_7351_db084.htm

    Government: 754,000 People Are Homeless
    http://www.local6.com/news/11130452/detail.html

    A revolution might happen in USA too, it's time to start caring about the people too and not just the ultra-rich who are doing just fine without all the extra help.

    Corporate Profits 'Near-Historic' In Second Quarter, Thanks To Cost-Cutting
    http://urlcut.com/1xusr

    Where do they place that money?

    Since 2009, 88 Percent Of Income Growth Went To Corporate Profits, Just One Percent Went To Wages
    http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/06/30/258388/corporate-profits-recovery/

    "Widespread poverty and concentrated wealth cannot exist side by side in a democracy." Jefferson

    As for selfishness. Well, even cavemen understood to co-operate. Because the ego, no matter the size survives better with help from others.
     

Share This Page