- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
No. I am disinclined to acquiesce to your request.
The Perfect Bailout Plan
- Thread starter Johnny
- Start date
- Status
That's all right, silence speaks volumes.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
Zactly
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Zactly
Ok, I'll play along. Even though you won't answer 2 very basic questions because the answers blow your entire economic theory out of the water, what questions of yours did I miss?
Zactly
Ok, I'll play along. Even though you won't answer 2 very basic questions because the answers blow your entire economic theory out of the water, what questions of yours did I miss?
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
Explain and define, please.
Answer the questions and you will have your explanations.
Why won't you answer 2 very basic questions?
Why won't you answer 2 very basic questions?
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
Please explain. What haven't I answered?
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
Originally Posted By: Tempest
You didn't answer my most important question:
And who is "handing" money to the rich?
You failed to answer my question as to where the burger place, truck factory, etc. came from in your example?
Please answer the questions.
"Wrong question."
It is the right question. People that get money for free, do not deserve it, and have done nothing to earn it.
The rich accumulated in any number of manners.
The burger joint guy allegedly took "a risk" in some venture. You appear to want to reduce that risk. Why should I want to participate in subsidizing his desire to accumulate wealth?
Again, there's absolutely no assurance that anything productive is done with tax breaks for investment. In fact, aside from "swings of the tail" ..there hasn't be an increase in wages here since 1973.
Again, let's say I'm Dr. Haas (who I have great respect for- seriously) ...he makes a big bundle ..takes wages that are suited to his tax exemptions so that he pays zero FIT (or near enough) .he then, either directly or through a firm that specializes in just such matters, parks his excess wealth in something that does absolutely nothing except avoid the 35% income tax. In fact, he may swap it around with others seeking to park their wealth if he finds a bigger parking lot for it.
..but let's say that he does 'something' of alleged productivity. Let's say he opens a series of burger joints. If he makes no money ..just breaks even ....he still realizes 35% in tax avoidance. That is, he can lose up to 35% of his investment and still not be at a loss. Now how likely is that?
Now where is there any proof that the burger joints that he invested in served the society? That is, has he created wealth? Has he moved people closer to self actualization ..or has he just avoided a bunch of taxes and expanded his wealth in the process? You assert that he has ..but cannot prove it. If this pathway TRULY benefited the society ..the society would be perpetually upwardly mobile. It's not, it's in decline.
what you're really saying is "You're going to be miserable! Don't spoil it for those of us who can actually enjoy ourselves! Leave us alone and maybe we'll trickle down some drippings from our pockets. Meanwhile, you keep the place running (by paying taxes)".
It's sorta like the guy who visits and figures that he doesn't need to chip in since it costs you the same regardless of him being there or not. Yes, a sleaze with no class.
Wealth doesn't have to have class.
You didn't answer my most important question:
And who is "handing" money to the rich?
You failed to answer my question as to where the burger place, truck factory, etc. came from in your example?
Please answer the questions.
"Wrong question."
It is the right question. People that get money for free, do not deserve it, and have done nothing to earn it.
The rich accumulated in any number of manners.
The burger joint guy allegedly took "a risk" in some venture. You appear to want to reduce that risk. Why should I want to participate in subsidizing his desire to accumulate wealth?
Again, there's absolutely no assurance that anything productive is done with tax breaks for investment. In fact, aside from "swings of the tail" ..there hasn't be an increase in wages here since 1973.
Again, let's say I'm Dr. Haas (who I have great respect for- seriously) ...he makes a big bundle ..takes wages that are suited to his tax exemptions so that he pays zero FIT (or near enough) .he then, either directly or through a firm that specializes in just such matters, parks his excess wealth in something that does absolutely nothing except avoid the 35% income tax. In fact, he may swap it around with others seeking to park their wealth if he finds a bigger parking lot for it.
..but let's say that he does 'something' of alleged productivity. Let's say he opens a series of burger joints. If he makes no money ..just breaks even ....he still realizes 35% in tax avoidance. That is, he can lose up to 35% of his investment and still not be at a loss. Now how likely is that?
Now where is there any proof that the burger joints that he invested in served the society? That is, has he created wealth? Has he moved people closer to self actualization ..or has he just avoided a bunch of taxes and expanded his wealth in the process? You assert that he has ..but cannot prove it. If this pathway TRULY benefited the society ..the society would be perpetually upwardly mobile. It's not, it's in decline.
what you're really saying is "You're going to be miserable! Don't spoil it for those of us who can actually enjoy ourselves! Leave us alone and maybe we'll trickle down some drippings from our pockets. Meanwhile, you keep the place running (by paying taxes)".
It's sorta like the guy who visits and figures that he doesn't need to chip in since it costs you the same regardless of him being there or not. Yes, a sleaze with no class.
Wealth doesn't have to have class.
Quote:
The burger joint guy allegedly took "a risk" in some venture. You appear to want to reduce that risk. Why should I want to participate in subsidizing his desire to accumulate wealth?
Was the burger guy on the upper end of the income spectrum or the lower end? Please answer.
Half of all new businesses fail in the first year so it is indeed a serious risk to take.
And I've not been talking about subsidies. Do you consider allowing him to keep more of what he earns a government subsidy?
Quote:
Now where is there any proof that the burger joints that he invested in served the society?
He has created a place that supports at least him. He probably has other employees that get a pay check. They wouldn't have those pay checks without him (or others like him).
That is the best contribution to society that he can make. He is indeed supporting self actualization of others at his risk.
Quote:
parks his excess wealth in something that does absolutely nothing except avoid the 35% income tax.
Um, if he already has the money and has paid the initial taxes at whatever rate (even in the unlikely event of 0%), there are no more income taxes to be avoided if he just sits on it. Park it at the bank or in a mattress, doesn't matter. No super secret holding company needed.
Parking your money does not make you money. In fact, it loses you money due to inflation. You are not making money by avoidance post tax.
The burger joint guy allegedly took "a risk" in some venture. You appear to want to reduce that risk. Why should I want to participate in subsidizing his desire to accumulate wealth?
Was the burger guy on the upper end of the income spectrum or the lower end? Please answer.
Half of all new businesses fail in the first year so it is indeed a serious risk to take.
And I've not been talking about subsidies. Do you consider allowing him to keep more of what he earns a government subsidy?
Quote:
Now where is there any proof that the burger joints that he invested in served the society?
He has created a place that supports at least him. He probably has other employees that get a pay check. They wouldn't have those pay checks without him (or others like him).
That is the best contribution to society that he can make. He is indeed supporting self actualization of others at his risk.
Quote:
parks his excess wealth in something that does absolutely nothing except avoid the 35% income tax.
Um, if he already has the money and has paid the initial taxes at whatever rate (even in the unlikely event of 0%), there are no more income taxes to be avoided if he just sits on it. Park it at the bank or in a mattress, doesn't matter. No super secret holding company needed.
Parking your money does not make you money. In fact, it loses you money due to inflation. You are not making money by avoidance post tax.
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Parking your money does not make you money. In fact, it loses you money due to inflation. You are not making money by avoidance post tax.
I've seen many small business people make a (relative) fortune by parking their money.
They can, and do pay themselves a reasonable wage, and then salary sacrifice a large portion into their (self managed) superannuation fund, decreasing their "taxable" income, often down to the threshold value for :low income earner".
This "parked" money buys the building that the business is housed in, and any vehicles, tools, equipment, photocopiers, computers etc., which the business then leases off the superannuation scheme.
The dough flows into the super scheme, rather than third parties, and becomes a tax deduction for the business.
When they come to retirement, they pay 15% on an amount of money that's not had any tax paid on it before, and has compounded massively.
Their total tax number of $ is bigger, but is deferred and devalued by inflation.
Their employers pay their tax today, and have only after tax money to save/compound.
Parking your money does not make you money. In fact, it loses you money due to inflation. You are not making money by avoidance post tax.
I've seen many small business people make a (relative) fortune by parking their money.
They can, and do pay themselves a reasonable wage, and then salary sacrifice a large portion into their (self managed) superannuation fund, decreasing their "taxable" income, often down to the threshold value for :low income earner".
This "parked" money buys the building that the business is housed in, and any vehicles, tools, equipment, photocopiers, computers etc., which the business then leases off the superannuation scheme.
The dough flows into the super scheme, rather than third parties, and becomes a tax deduction for the business.
When they come to retirement, they pay 15% on an amount of money that's not had any tax paid on it before, and has compounded massively.
Their total tax number of $ is bigger, but is deferred and devalued by inflation.
Their employers pay their tax today, and have only after tax money to save/compound.
BTW, just read that 4 times the bailout over 20 years would pay for the conversion of 95% of US electricity production to renewables/fossil free...current bailout would fund the next 4 or 5 years of conversion.
I wonder what the respective ROIs would be...or the $450b requested by the pentagon.
I wonder what the respective ROIs would be...or the $450b requested by the pentagon.
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
The burger joint guy allegedly took "a risk" in some venture. You appear to want to reduce that risk. Why should I want to participate in subsidizing his desire to accumulate wealth?
I suppose I would take some risk that the Burger King guy has somewhat of a chance of hiring workers, and ultimately adding to the tax rolls.
We know that the lower 40% of peeps pay no federal taxes till all of the dust settles. Yet these people get "Tax Breaks" in the last and proposed stimulus package. Are you O.K. with those "Tax Breaks" that are in effect more welfare??
The burger joint guy allegedly took "a risk" in some venture. You appear to want to reduce that risk. Why should I want to participate in subsidizing his desire to accumulate wealth?
I suppose I would take some risk that the Burger King guy has somewhat of a chance of hiring workers, and ultimately adding to the tax rolls.
We know that the lower 40% of peeps pay no federal taxes till all of the dust settles. Yet these people get "Tax Breaks" in the last and proposed stimulus package. Are you O.K. with those "Tax Breaks" that are in effect more welfare??
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
Quote:
Was the burger guy on the upper end of the income spectrum or the lower end? Please answer.
Was the burger guy a sweat and toil millionaire or some guy/gal part of a wealth parking enterprise? Please answer!
You don't know ..neither do I. This is the baseball bat that I repeated smack with and it bounces off. There's no assurance that the guy/gal is "suffering the crushing burden of taxation".
Prove it.
Quote:
Half of all new businesses fail in the first year so it is indeed a serious risk to take.
..and at one time 95% of all new businesses fail within the first 5 years. There is some assumption that a business failure means a business loss. Many are shut down due to lack of ROI.
Again, if it's weighed against a 35% FIT ....just where is the loss? This part you conspicuously and repeatedly ignore.
If I'm "constructing" my "earned income" to pay no tax ..and still have GOBBS of money ..what am I gonna do with it? I'm going to invest it. I don't have to benefit anyone to benefit from parking it.
Quote:
And I've not been talking about subsidies.
Sure you have. You just refuse to look at avoided losses as gains. If you avoided 100% of your kids education costs ...someone did you a favor and paid it for you ..I suppose you would just view that as "keeping more of YOUR money". In reality someone let you off for YOUR BILL. I also suppose that your windfall in avoided costs wouldn't do a thing to enhance your life in avoided costs, right?? Yeah, right.
Quote:
He has created a place that supports at least him.
I many cases ..not even close. Assuming a franchise, he may have bought himself a job. That's the oddity. If you can afford to get into one, you have no need for the income that they provide. Most are turnkey absentee owners. They aren't making money ..they're avoiding taxes and expanding wealth. The burger joint is merely one modality of doing so.
Tell me that this person doesn't exist. Tell me many of them don't exist. Tell me that the majority of franchise owners rose from commonality. You can't.
Quote:
He probably has other employees that get a pay check. They wouldn't have those pay checks without him (or others like him).
So? So we configure wealth shelters for the sake of a jobs program? I thought you weren't into jobs programs. I guess if they facilitate wealth expansion ..then jobs programs are a good thing. Now I understand.
Quote:
He is indeed supporting self actualization of others at his risk.
Prove this, please. How do we know that he benefited anyone other than himself. That is, if this were true, then the society should be upwardly mobile. It's not. Why? I mean ..we sure have no shortage of burger joints and other wealth parking mechanisms out there.
Does the government operate burger joints? What would they do with the revenue that this guy is amassing in idle wealth?
Quote:
Um, if he already has the money and has paid the initial taxes at whatever rate (even in the unlikely event of 0%), there are no more income taxes to be avoided if he just sits on it. Park it at the bank or in a mattress, doesn't matter. No super secret holding company needed.
Parking your money does not make you money. In fact, it loses you money due to inflation. You are not making money by avoidance post tax.
Sorry ..you keep ignoring things that don't support your myths. I've described any number of ways that income doesn't equate to taxable income. It's a manipulated figure that suits the individual. Why do you think most executive compensation packages are so biased to "deferred" income?
Please, conceded to the obvious.
AGAIN ...I have no "hatred" for the wealthy ..or the ambitious ...but PELL-EEZZZ ...let's not kid ourselves here that they're doing anyone any favors except themselves.
Was the burger guy on the upper end of the income spectrum or the lower end? Please answer.
Was the burger guy a sweat and toil millionaire or some guy/gal part of a wealth parking enterprise? Please answer!
You don't know ..neither do I. This is the baseball bat that I repeated smack with and it bounces off. There's no assurance that the guy/gal is "suffering the crushing burden of taxation".
Prove it.
Quote:
Half of all new businesses fail in the first year so it is indeed a serious risk to take.
..and at one time 95% of all new businesses fail within the first 5 years. There is some assumption that a business failure means a business loss. Many are shut down due to lack of ROI.
Again, if it's weighed against a 35% FIT ....just where is the loss? This part you conspicuously and repeatedly ignore.
If I'm "constructing" my "earned income" to pay no tax ..and still have GOBBS of money ..what am I gonna do with it? I'm going to invest it. I don't have to benefit anyone to benefit from parking it.
Quote:
And I've not been talking about subsidies.
Sure you have. You just refuse to look at avoided losses as gains. If you avoided 100% of your kids education costs ...someone did you a favor and paid it for you ..I suppose you would just view that as "keeping more of YOUR money". In reality someone let you off for YOUR BILL. I also suppose that your windfall in avoided costs wouldn't do a thing to enhance your life in avoided costs, right?? Yeah, right.
Quote:
He has created a place that supports at least him.
I many cases ..not even close. Assuming a franchise, he may have bought himself a job. That's the oddity. If you can afford to get into one, you have no need for the income that they provide. Most are turnkey absentee owners. They aren't making money ..they're avoiding taxes and expanding wealth. The burger joint is merely one modality of doing so.
Tell me that this person doesn't exist. Tell me many of them don't exist. Tell me that the majority of franchise owners rose from commonality. You can't.
Quote:
He probably has other employees that get a pay check. They wouldn't have those pay checks without him (or others like him).
So? So we configure wealth shelters for the sake of a jobs program? I thought you weren't into jobs programs. I guess if they facilitate wealth expansion ..then jobs programs are a good thing. Now I understand.
Quote:
He is indeed supporting self actualization of others at his risk.
Prove this, please. How do we know that he benefited anyone other than himself. That is, if this were true, then the society should be upwardly mobile. It's not. Why? I mean ..we sure have no shortage of burger joints and other wealth parking mechanisms out there.
Does the government operate burger joints? What would they do with the revenue that this guy is amassing in idle wealth?
Quote:
Um, if he already has the money and has paid the initial taxes at whatever rate (even in the unlikely event of 0%), there are no more income taxes to be avoided if he just sits on it. Park it at the bank or in a mattress, doesn't matter. No super secret holding company needed.
Parking your money does not make you money. In fact, it loses you money due to inflation. You are not making money by avoidance post tax.
Sorry ..you keep ignoring things that don't support your myths. I've described any number of ways that income doesn't equate to taxable income. It's a manipulated figure that suits the individual. Why do you think most executive compensation packages are so biased to "deferred" income?
Please, conceded to the obvious.
AGAIN ...I have no "hatred" for the wealthy ..or the ambitious ...but PELL-EEZZZ ...let's not kid ourselves here that they're doing anyone any favors except themselves.
Originally Posted By: Al
We know that the lower 40% of peeps pay no federal taxes till all of the dust settles. Yet these people get "Tax Breaks" in the last and proposed stimulus package. Are you O.K. with those "Tax Breaks" that are in effect more welfare??
This is a sadshidt sham. I say we go 100%. Government should just give people 100% of their cash. That will work. See Gary's posts.
We know that the lower 40% of peeps pay no federal taxes till all of the dust settles. Yet these people get "Tax Breaks" in the last and proposed stimulus package. Are you O.K. with those "Tax Breaks" that are in effect more welfare??
This is a sadshidt sham. I say we go 100%. Government should just give people 100% of their cash. That will work. See Gary's posts.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
Again, if you want to dismantle government and let the free market operate without "tinkering", fine.
..but since we're here ..don't pretend to play both ends against the middle depending on which side you're arguing at the moment.
If "giveaways" or tax breaks are bad ...they're bad for EVERYONE. If deductions and exemptions are bad or good ..they're that way all the time.
Don't flimflam and flipflop due to YOUR particular "self interest" and ignore the flaws in it too.
..but since we're here ..don't pretend to play both ends against the middle depending on which side you're arguing at the moment.
If "giveaways" or tax breaks are bad ...they're bad for EVERYONE. If deductions and exemptions are bad or good ..they're that way all the time.
Don't flimflam and flipflop due to YOUR particular "self interest" and ignore the flaws in it too.
The problem stems from the free market tinkering with government, which then uses force on others to benefit certain companies in that "free" market.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
Originally Posted By: oilyriser
The problem stems from the free market tinkering with government, which then uses force on others to benefit certain companies in that "free" market.
YES = THANK YOU! You can't separate the two. Blaming the enabler and not the manipulator is just silly. Sure government is the problem ..but who's forming the government? Surely not the masses being taken to the cleaners. If you follow the money ..you see who has benefited the most. They are the ones manipulating the system.
I surely sought to configure this mess we're in. Blame me, I guess ..blame the lower rung dwellers ...they surely wanted their dollar devaluated and their home equities reduced to chump change. Blame the seniors with their fixed incomes ..they surely want to stretch those dollars even further when paying for their medication.
It's clearly all their fault.
The problem stems from the free market tinkering with government, which then uses force on others to benefit certain companies in that "free" market.
YES = THANK YOU! You can't separate the two. Blaming the enabler and not the manipulator is just silly. Sure government is the problem ..but who's forming the government? Surely not the masses being taken to the cleaners. If you follow the money ..you see who has benefited the most. They are the ones manipulating the system.
I surely sought to configure this mess we're in. Blame me, I guess ..blame the lower rung dwellers ...they surely wanted their dollar devaluated and their home equities reduced to chump change. Blame the seniors with their fixed incomes ..they surely want to stretch those dollars even further when paying for their medication.
It's clearly all their fault.
Quote:
They can, and do pay themselves a reasonable wage, and then salary sacrifice a large portion into their (self managed) superannuation fund, decreasing their "taxable" income, often down to the threshold value for :low income earner".
This "parked" money buys the building that the business is housed in, and any vehicles, tools, equipment, photocopiers, computers etc., which the business then leases off the superannuation scheme.
Sounds like a loop hole in Government policy.
They can, and do pay themselves a reasonable wage, and then salary sacrifice a large portion into their (self managed) superannuation fund, decreasing their "taxable" income, often down to the threshold value for :low income earner".
This "parked" money buys the building that the business is housed in, and any vehicles, tools, equipment, photocopiers, computers etc., which the business then leases off the superannuation scheme.
Sounds like a loop hole in Government policy.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
They can, and do pay themselves a reasonable wage, and then salary sacrifice a large portion into their (self managed) superannuation fund, decreasing their "taxable" income, often down to the threshold value for :low income earner".
This "parked" money buys the building that the business is housed in, and any vehicles, tools, equipment, photocopiers, computers etc., which the business then leases off the superannuation scheme.
Sounds like a loop hole in Government policy.
It's just like many of our rackets. All you have do to qualify is afford the ante. Once you breach a certain threshold ..it's very easy to avoid taxation and amass wealth. As you assert, they need help ..and they get it.
In a rational competitive model, the acquisition and amassing of wealth should contour something like achieving the speed of light. The more you amass ..the effort exerted to acquire more should increase. What we have now are certain threshold barriers that basically lock out access below a certain ante. Once you breach it, you're applying a different set of physics.
Quote:
They can, and do pay themselves a reasonable wage, and then salary sacrifice a large portion into their (self managed) superannuation fund, decreasing their "taxable" income, often down to the threshold value for :low income earner".
This "parked" money buys the building that the business is housed in, and any vehicles, tools, equipment, photocopiers, computers etc., which the business then leases off the superannuation scheme.
Sounds like a loop hole in Government policy.
It's just like many of our rackets. All you have do to qualify is afford the ante. Once you breach a certain threshold ..it's very easy to avoid taxation and amass wealth. As you assert, they need help ..and they get it.
In a rational competitive model, the acquisition and amassing of wealth should contour something like achieving the speed of light. The more you amass ..the effort exerted to acquire more should increase. What we have now are certain threshold barriers that basically lock out access below a certain ante. Once you breach it, you're applying a different set of physics.
- Status
Similar threads
