Was Pitts right?
in [Golf]
|
From: Chris Bellomy on 22 Dec 2009 19:55 assimilate(a)borg.org wrote, On 12/22/09 5:18 PM: > On 21-Dec-2009, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote: > >>> Are you so daft to think that the only reason people buy things they >>> don't >>> need is because of a lack of taxation? >> I'm not so daft as to think that I should call on Bill King >> to explain to me the reasons why people buy things they >> don't "need," whatever that means. I do find it odd that >> you would tell poor people what they should do with their >> money, but have a big problem with telling rich people >> something similar. > > When have I told anyone what to do with their money, that is their decision. When you decide what people need, you've made a judgment about how they should (or shouldn't) spend their money. cb
From: Chris Bellomy on 22 Dec 2009 19:56 assimilate(a)borg.org wrote, On 12/22/09 5:21 PM: > On 21-Dec-2009, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote: > >>> What is important here, which you ignore, is that the incentive >>> structure be >>> reversed to promote production. This creates wealth. >> Bill, I hate showing you up, but in all honesty this is >> just about the stupidest thing I've ever read. You cannot >> create incentive to invest in production if nobody is >> buying anything. The world just doesn't work that way. > > and the end of the income tax stops people from buying anything? I no longer remember the context of this discussion, so I think I'll drop it.
From: Chris Bellomy on 22 Dec 2009 19:58 assimilate(a)borg.org wrote, On 12/22/09 5:25 PM: > On 22-Dec-2009, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote: > >> The only thing that inhibits production in the American >> economic model is freezing of capital. Truly confiscatory >> taxation that reaches too far down in brackets can have >> the effect of discouraging productivity, but that's a >> TOTALLY different statement than "taxation inhibits >> production," which is really meant to stymie rational >> discussion of the issue. > > please how does "reaching too far down" in brackets constitute "confiscatory > taxing" instead of say taking 50% off the top of the most likely to > re-invest in job creating ventures? You misread me. "Truly confiscatory taxation" and "reaches too far down in brackets" are two separate ideas. The first would involve a rate above, oh, 70% IMO. The second would involve income below, oh, probably $1 million/year or so. In light of that, do you want to rephrase your question? cb
From: Chris Bellomy on 23 Dec 2009 12:19 BAR wrote, On 12/23/09 6:26 AM: > In article <Aomdna116vrw96zWnZ2dnUVZ_gpi4p2d(a)supernews.com>, > ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc says... >> assimilate(a)borg.org wrote, On 12/22/09 5:18 PM: >>> On 21-Dec-2009, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote: >>> >>>>> Are you so daft to think that the only reason people buy things they >>>>> don't >>>>> need is because of a lack of taxation? >>>> I'm not so daft as to think that I should call on Bill King >>>> to explain to me the reasons why people buy things they >>>> don't "need," whatever that means. I do find it odd that >>>> you would tell poor people what they should do with their >>>> money, but have a big problem with telling rich people >>>> something similar. >>> When have I told anyone what to do with their money, that is their decision. >> When you decide what people need, you've made a judgment >> about how they should (or shouldn't) spend their money. > > Government at all levels, in your elected and non-elected > representatives, decides what you need everyday. You have your fellow > citizens to thank for sticking their collective noses into your business > and telling you how to run your life. I don't feel like government tells me how to run my life at all, except for ignorant drug laws and the sort. cb
From: BAR on 23 Dec 2009 07:26
In article <Aomdna116vrw96zWnZ2dnUVZ_gpi4p2d(a)supernews.com>, ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc says... > > assimilate(a)borg.org wrote, On 12/22/09 5:18 PM: > > On 21-Dec-2009, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote: > > > >>> Are you so daft to think that the only reason people buy things they > >>> don't > >>> need is because of a lack of taxation? > >> I'm not so daft as to think that I should call on Bill King > >> to explain to me the reasons why people buy things they > >> don't "need," whatever that means. I do find it odd that > >> you would tell poor people what they should do with their > >> money, but have a big problem with telling rich people > >> something similar. > > > > When have I told anyone what to do with their money, that is their decision. > > When you decide what people need, you've made a judgment > about how they should (or shouldn't) spend their money. Government at all levels, in your elected and non-elected representatives, decides what you need everyday. You have your fellow citizens to thank for sticking their collective noses into your business and telling you how to run your life. It is only going to get worse. |