Don't Get Caught Holding Dollars When The U.S. Default Arrives

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Of course, that's because everyone was turning them down.

I see. The higher top tax rates forced achievers to turn down their raise offers leaving companies with cash to pay the rank and file. That's how the higher marginal rates distorted the market by rewarding those that didn't deserve any rewards. That makes sense. Gotta go get my GOP party book now that I see the light.

[slim 1,514]

If you have insurance through the VA, you wouldn't be required to pay. You would simply provide a letter saying you have insurance (insurers have a term of this letter, which escapes me at the moment) and then you opt out. No big deal.

If you make so much money a year, you can't get VA insurance.

I'd rather make more than less. If making more means I have to pay more, that's cool too. I'm not going to refuse a raise because I want to avoid entering the 35% marginal tax bracket.

You would. But what about those households out there on the dole?

If you make 100 bucks more and the government takes away 35 of it... you're still making more.

Only a real schmuck would decide it wasn't worth it.

Only a real schmuck would sit at home and take money they didn't earn.

Who is "Him"? The almighty?

Ron Paul.

I see. The higher top tax rates forced achievers to turn down their raise offers leaving companies with cash to pay the rank and file. That's how the higher marginal rates distorted the market by rewarding those that didn't deserve any rewards. That makes sense. Gotta go get my GOP party book now that I see the light.

In theory, this is correct. Only your analogy about a corporation is actually about the whole country.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Ron Paul.

I thought we were having a serious discussion. I suppose I thought wrong.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I see. The higher top tax rates forced achievers to turn down their raise offers leaving companies with cash to pay the rank and file. That's how the higher marginal rates distorted the market by rewarding those that didn't deserve any rewards. That makes sense. Gotta go get my GOP party book now that I see the light.

Achievers don't get "raise offers" people in the higest tax brackets are not asking other people to give them a raise. Seriously? When the prospect of earning money in the USA is diminished by high tax rates, they will earn money somewhere else and not pay tax to the USA or employ Americans to make money for them. They dont have to. They will not sto earning so much money (seriously?) but they will just earn it where they can keep more for themselves. For every one of these supposed "tax increases" on the "rich" the rich people pay lobbyists millions to get exemptions and exclusions and tax shelters written in. The blowhard politicians end up passing tax "increases" that increase nothing! It is fully as effective as the "Assualt Weapons Ban" that didn't ban anything but got a bunch of Dems tossed out on their @ss.

Again, we need to take the government OUT of the tax equation as much as possible. The purpose of taxes needs to be to provide revenue and that is all. As with other government functions it should be without bias, without prejudice, without bigotry. Without favoritism for any group of people. Imagine a store which required you to provide your income tax return and charged you prices based on income.

All we would have to do is scrap the unfair "income tax system" (many of the wealthiest people have relatively little to claim in "income") And replace it with the FAIR TAX.

[slim 1,514]

I thought we were having a serious discussion. I suppose I thought wrong.

Suppose what you want, but we'll see what happens come election time.

[scandal 951]

I think I already posted this, but I liked it so much it's worth posting again.

Michael Bloomberg's comments to Christiane Amanpour on Sunday. He's a billionaire, worth in the neighborhood of $16 billion, who founded Bloomberg LP, and he believes he gets value for his taxes and is willing to pay more in tax as part of a responsible long term effort to deal with deficits. Just a little color to this discussion of whether taxing the wealthy is a disincentive for them to invest and produce and create jobs. Some of them, at least, get it. Go Mike.

Bloomberg said he believes "it's impossible" to reduce long-term deficits with spending cuts alone, insisting that revenue increases must be part of the final budget deal still being negotiated.

"There's just no way if you look at the numbers. You can't cut enough to balance the budget, and you have to if we're going to eliminate the deficit and reduce the debt," Bloomberg said. "You have to raise money from someplace."

The billionaire mayor said that he is willing to see his own taxes go up as part of a long-term deal to reduce the deficit.

"I get pretty good value for my taxes... We get a lot for our tax dollars," Bloomberg said. "I don't want to pay any more taxes than is necessary, but I do want the services, and I want us to live within our means. So, if we want more services, we've got to come up with the revenue."

[slim 1,514]

Bloomberg is a crook and just because he has money doesn't mean he understands how the government can balance it's budget - he's a politician.

A 3rd grader could balance the budget in 5 minutes. "Can't cut spending enough?" Bull. Eliminate the unnecessary government departments and BOOM! you're set.

[scandal 951]

Bloomberg is a crook

Proof. Cite Evidence. Can't? Oh Noes.

[slim 1,514]

Proof. Cite Evidence. Can't? Oh Noes.

Bloomberg paid people to buy guns. That's a felony. If you or I did the same thing, we'd be locked up.

Proof. Evidence. Oh yes. (I skipped over the obviously RWN sites, Fox, CNN, MSNBC,etc., to pull this from lefty news outlet NPR so you know it can't be biased.)

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113594508

[mawilson 2,133]

Bloomberg paid people to buy guns. That's a felony. If you or I did the same thing, we'd be locked up.

Proof. Evidence. Oh yes. (I skipped over the obviously RWN sites, Fox, CNN, MSNBC,etc., to pull this from lefty news outlet NPR so you know it can't be biased.)

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113594508

I don't care for his fascist antics (I am a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment), but I wouldn't call him a crook.

[scandal 951]

Bloomberg paid people to buy guns. That's a felony. If you or I did the same thing, we'd be locked up.

Proof. Evidence. Oh yes. (I skipped over the obviously RWN sites, Fox, CNN, MSNBC,etc., to pull this from lefty news outlet NPR so you know it can't be biased.)

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113594508

From your linked article the only reference I could see to anything Bloomberg did that involved legality is the following:

In 2006, Bloomberg had private investigators conduct a similar sting operation in five states. They targeted gun stores where weapons linked to hundreds of crimes in New York City had been purchased.

Based on the results, the Bloomberg administration sued 27 stores that it alleged had allowed straw purchasers. But the mayor was later warned by the U.S. Justice Department that such stings may not be legal, and some states have since outlawed them.

So, the FBI told him that his stings "may not be legal". That is a very far cry from being accused of a crime, arrested for that crime, tried in court for that crime, convicted of that crime. In the America I'm familiar with, a crook is one who is actually found guilty of something.

[slim 1,514]

I don't care for his fascist antics (I am a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment), but I wouldn't call him a crook.

If you did it, you'd be called a crook.

From your linked article the only reference I could see to anything Bloomberg did that involved legality is the following:

So, the FBI told him that his stings "may not be legal". That is a very far cry from being accused of a crime, arrested for that crime, tried in court for that crime, convicted of that crime. In the America I'm familiar with, a crook is one who is actually found guilty of something.

In the America I'm familiar with, billionaires who commit crimes are "warned" by DOJ and the rest of us are hauled off to jail on presumption of guilt until innocence can be proven.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Suppose what you want, but we'll see what happens come election time.

We will. What we will not see is Ron Paul taking the oath of office. I doubt we will even see him on the ballot.

[slim 1,514]

We will. What we will not see is Ron Paul taking the oath of office. I doubt we will even see him on the ballot.

I think this year we'll see him on the ballot although it might be opposite a republican name.

Edited July 29, 2011 by slim

[^_^ 5,021]

I think this year we'll see him on the ballot although it might be opposite a republican name.

He could easily get on the ballot IMO. Just not on the R line.