[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
He took a camera crew into a crowd of angry protesters with a sign that says, “I am the 1%” and picked a fight. Sorry guys, I’m calling it like I see it.
[/quote]
His sign said “lets talk” not lets fight.
Peter Schiff is amazing.
A longer vid:
So many people shouting at him!
All their faces say is “You’re rich, I’m jealous, give me your money.”
Their words too. None of them have a coherent argument.
Study hard and position yourself well kids. You can. If money is your goal research careers and find those with the highest cieling before jumping on a path.
If money is not your goal don’t get crazy about not having it later.
sigh
[quote]groo wrote:
75 percent marginal tax on any income over 2 million how about that, capital gains or wages. You think he’d drop out of the economy and try not to earn to that level? Which seems to be the backside of his argument. People pick weird economic policy heroes.
Perhaps we should run the 9 9 9 and the free enterprise zones pushed by Cain?(This is the plan endorsed by your man here) They seem pretty strong. Certainly seems like a fair plan. I do like the part about the free enterprise zones in the inner cities it has a little je nais se quoi.[/quote]
Would never happen. If they taxed individuals this aggressively, imagine corporate tax.
Even if adjusted to allow revenue flow to support jobs that grant people an income to begin with, there would undoubtedly be some assassinations at hand.
In 2010, our GDP was estimated at $14.7 Trillion. Largely cultivated in private industry.
You try to steal $11 trillion dollars and see if you live.
Hell a lowly millionare with $2mil at risk of being cut to $500k would be able to contract a kill for less than his taxes would take from him.
Conjecture perhaps but totally realistic and likely.
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
All their faces say is “You’re rich, I’m jealous, give me your money.”
Their words too. None of them have a coherent argument.
Study hard and position yourself well kids. You can. If money is your goal research careers and find those with the highest cieling before jumping on a path.
If money is not your goal don’t get crazy about not having it later.[/quote]
Very true. I’ve had the opportunity to go into a couple high paying jobs, but decided not to because I knew they weren’t for me. I know I’m not going to be rich by teaching. But being rich isn’t my priority. And I’m a simple guy with simple needs, I don’t need to be rich. Plus, I have awesome money saving skills and am slowly learning about different investment strategies. Excluding s major economic or governmental crash, I’ll be fine.
Find out what’s most important to you and go for it. But if money wasn’t at the top of the list, don’t go whining about things being unfair when someone else is making more than you.
And for those people want to cry about the price of college…important words to remember…
[quote]Sloth wrote:
One of the biggest points he made, before the conversation quickly moved on;
Are the OWS folks REALLY upset that wall street/banks got bailed out? Or, are they REALLY upset that they aren’t getting bailed out, too?
It seems to me he introduced something none of them had considered…no one should’ve been/should be bailed out. That the hated entities should’ve failed, and that those folks should’ve lost their jobs.[/quote]
My sentiments since 2008. Let’em fail. Let the free market work…Bet a millions bucks that had that happened, we’d be on the way to recovery right now and not stuck in the recession. Bailing them out ensured the businesses take no corrective actions. They were sheltered from the consequences…It was precisely the meddling that prolonged the agony. There is a reason it did not work in the '30’s, because it’s stupid philosophy.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
He took a camera crew into a crowd of angry protesters with a sign that says, “I am the 1%” and picked a fight. Sorry guys, I’m calling it like I see it.
[/quote]
He seemed calm and reasonable to me, there was no fighting. He asked how much he should be taxed and they said 35% to which he answered he’s paying 50%. Saying that getting taxed to much more would put him out of business and would add 150 to the number of unemployed. He’s completely right.
People go in to business to make money, if not they are running a charity. If aren’t making money, you shut the business down. It’s no more complicated than that.
If raise taxes on these people, unemployment and inflation will rise. For as much hooping and hollering obama does not the bush tax cuts, he will resign them in to law, he has no choice and he knows it.
Frankly Peter Schiff is my hero.
A true self made man.
I like the guy tying the race struggle of the 60’s in to modern bank bailouts, wearing a weird costume calling Schiff a fool.
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
75 percent marginal tax on any income over 2 million how about that, capital gains or wages. You think he’d drop out of the economy and try not to earn to that level? Which seems to be the backside of his argument. People pick weird economic policy heroes.
Perhaps we should run the 9 9 9 and the free enterprise zones pushed by Cain?(This is the plan endorsed by your man here) They seem pretty strong. Certainly seems like a fair plan. I do like the part about the free enterprise zones in the inner cities it has a little je nais se quoi.[/quote]
Would never happen. If they taxed individuals this aggressively, imagine corporate tax.
Even if adjusted to allow revenue flow to support jobs that grant people an income to begin with, there would undoubtedly be some assassinations at hand.
In 2010, our GDP was estimated at $14.7 Trillion. Largely cultivated in private industry.
You try to steal $11 trillion dollars and see if you live.
Hell a lowly millionare with $2mil at risk of being cut to $500k would be able to contract a kill for less than his taxes would take from him.
Conjecture perhaps but totally realistic and likely.
[/quote]
Do you really want to hold that taxation is theft? I know you like to portray yourself a jovial fool, but this is moving away from simply playing the fool. Taxation is the cost of playing by the government’s rules.
If you want no taxation and no government the anarchists will meet you there. However assuming we agree that taxation is the acceptable cost of choosing the follow the rules of government then its not theft. You could remove yourself from being taxed after all if you chose.
On the other end why should a democratic society support a system if a majority feels it unjust? Obviously if we believe in democracy the masses should largely get the government they want even if it were to erode property rights and wealth accumulation. This is the crux of why people paint libertarians as fascists, because when push comes to shove they don’t hold that a democracy should be able to choose to redistribute wealth and property as it chooses.
75 percent was the marginal rate once upon a time. Corporations no matter what swill people want to feed anyone shouldn’t be treated as people especially not under the tax code. Corporate taxes should largely be lowered but made exemption free. This would help the myriad small corporations out there do business better while ensuring the mega corps pay their share.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
He took a camera crew into a crowd of angry protesters with a sign that says, “I am the 1%” and picked a fight. Sorry guys, I’m calling it like I see it.
[/quote]
He seemed calm and reasonable to me, there was no fighting. He asked how much he should be taxed and they said 35% to which he answered he’s paying 50%. Saying that getting taxed to much more would put him out of business and would add 150 to the number of unemployed. He’s completely right.
People go in to business to make money, if not they are running a charity. If aren’t making money, you shut the business down. It’s no more complicated than that.
If raise taxes on these people, unemployment and inflation will rise. For as much hooping and hollering obama does not the bush tax cuts, he will resign them in to law, he has no choice and he knows it. [/quote]
Schiff is an excellent salesman, you won’t get any argument on that, his real economic credentials are rather less though. He is being less than truthful in the 50 percent number since thats higher than his marginal rate. Clearly hes throwing other taxes in like self employment or his companies share of social security, which is fine as I am sure he pays it but its not exactly what he’s asking the crowd what his total tax burden should be and expecting specialized knowledge of what he pays personally is sort of silly.
As an aside people throwing out theft and violence are being a bit simple as well though this hasn’t been you, the fact that he can walk out there unmolested shows it to be a fairly nonviolent protest. If they really wanted to string up the rich there would have been some ample opportunity.
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
75 percent marginal tax on any income over 2 million how about that, capital gains or wages. You think he’d drop out of the economy and try not to earn to that level? Which seems to be the backside of his argument. People pick weird economic policy heroes.
Perhaps we should run the 9 9 9 and the free enterprise zones pushed by Cain?(This is the plan endorsed by your man here) They seem pretty strong. Certainly seems like a fair plan. I do like the part about the free enterprise zones in the inner cities it has a little je nais se quoi.[/quote]
Would never happen. If they taxed individuals this aggressively, imagine corporate tax.
Even if adjusted to allow revenue flow to support jobs that grant people an income to begin with, there would undoubtedly be some assassinations at hand.
In 2010, our GDP was estimated at $14.7 Trillion. Largely cultivated in private industry.
You try to steal $11 trillion dollars and see if you live.
Hell a lowly millionare with $2mil at risk of being cut to $500k would be able to contract a kill for less than his taxes would take from him.
Conjecture perhaps but totally realistic and likely.
[/quote]
Do you really want to hold that taxation is theft? I know you like to portray yourself a jovial fool, but this is moving away from simply playing the fool. Taxation is the cost of playing by the government’s rules.
If you want no taxation and no government the anarchists will meet you there. However assuming we agree that taxation is the acceptable cost of choosing the follow the rules of government then its not theft. You could remove yourself from being taxed after all if you chose.
On the other end why should a democratic society support a system if a majority feels it unjust? Obviously if we believe in democracy the masses should largely get the government they want even if it were to erode property rights and wealth accumulation. This is the crux of why people paint libertarians as fascists, because when push comes to shove they don’t hold that a democracy should be able to choose to redistribute wealth and property as it chooses.
75 percent was the marginal rate once upon a time. Corporations no matter what swill people want to feed anyone shouldn’t be treated as people especially not under the tax code. Corporate taxes should largely be lowered but made exemption free. This would help the myriad small corporations out there do business better while ensuring the mega corps pay their share.
[/quote]
Um, since when are we a mob rule democracy?
Last time I checked, our government was established only for the preservation of individual rights. Here in America, other places may be different.
I know some people seem to think taxes should pay for services for others, but that is not the case, In the U.S. taxes should only be levied to provide basic infrastructure.
Otherwise you are using violent force of the government to violate individual rights.
So in short, if you want the services and programs you pay for them, but no you cannot use the government o extort money from people to support your agenda.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
75 percent marginal tax on any income over 2 million how about that, capital gains or wages. You think he’d drop out of the economy and try not to earn to that level? Which seems to be the backside of his argument. People pick weird economic policy heroes.
Perhaps we should run the 9 9 9 and the free enterprise zones pushed by Cain?(This is the plan endorsed by your man here) They seem pretty strong. Certainly seems like a fair plan. I do like the part about the free enterprise zones in the inner cities it has a little je nais se quoi.[/quote]
Would never happen. If they taxed individuals this aggressively, imagine corporate tax.
Even if adjusted to allow revenue flow to support jobs that grant people an income to begin with, there would undoubtedly be some assassinations at hand.
In 2010, our GDP was estimated at $14.7 Trillion. Largely cultivated in private industry.
You try to steal $11 trillion dollars and see if you live.
Hell a lowly millionare with $2mil at risk of being cut to $500k would be able to contract a kill for less than his taxes would take from him.
Conjecture perhaps but totally realistic and likely.
[/quote]
Do you really want to hold that taxation is theft? I know you like to portray yourself a jovial fool, but this is moving away from simply playing the fool. Taxation is the cost of playing by the government’s rules.
If you want no taxation and no government the anarchists will meet you there. However assuming we agree that taxation is the acceptable cost of choosing the follow the rules of government then its not theft. You could remove yourself from being taxed after all if you chose.
On the other end why should a democratic society support a system if a majority feels it unjust? Obviously if we believe in democracy the masses should largely get the government they want even if it were to erode property rights and wealth accumulation. This is the crux of why people paint libertarians as fascists, because when push comes to shove they don’t hold that a democracy should be able to choose to redistribute wealth and property as it chooses.
75 percent was the marginal rate once upon a time. Corporations no matter what swill people want to feed anyone shouldn’t be treated as people especially not under the tax code. Corporate taxes should largely be lowered but made exemption free. This would help the myriad small corporations out there do business better while ensuring the mega corps pay their share.
[/quote]
Um, since when are we a mob rule democracy?
Last time I checked, our government was established only for the preservation of individual rights. Here in America, other places may be different.
I know some people seem to think taxes should pay for services for others, but that is not the case, In the U.S. taxes should only be levied to provide basic infrastructure.
Otherwise you are using violent force of the government to violate individual rights.
So in short, if you want the services and programs you pay for them, but no you cannot use the government o extort money from people to support your agenda. [/quote]
The only right to property is because the government allows you to hold it. There is no right by being born to hold property. Prior to that it was your own ability to use violence to hold it.
The entire point of a government is more or less using force to follow the will of those in power. Supposedly the people in the USA.
If a president were elected on the position of restoring a 75 percent marginal rate and the house and senate similarly filled with candidates backing this position, since its the will of the people the representatives should enact it in a representative democracy.
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
He took a camera crew into a crowd of angry protesters with a sign that says, “I am the 1%” and picked a fight. Sorry guys, I’m calling it like I see it.
[/quote]
He seemed calm and reasonable to me, there was no fighting. He asked how much he should be taxed and they said 35% to which he answered he’s paying 50%. Saying that getting taxed to much more would put him out of business and would add 150 to the number of unemployed. He’s completely right.
People go in to business to make money, if not they are running a charity. If aren’t making money, you shut the business down. It’s no more complicated than that.
If raise taxes on these people, unemployment and inflation will rise. For as much hooping and hollering obama does not the bush tax cuts, he will resign them in to law, he has no choice and he knows it. [/quote]
Schiff is an excellent salesman, you won’t get any argument on that, his real economic credentials are rather less though. He is being less than truthful in the 50 percent number since thats higher than his marginal rate. Clearly hes throwing other taxes in like self employment or his companies share of social security, which is fine as I am sure he pays it but its not exactly what he’s asking the crowd what his total tax burden should be and expecting specialized knowledge of what he pays personally is sort of silly.
As an aside people throwing out theft and violence are being a bit simple as well though this hasn’t been you, the fact that he can walk out there unmolested shows it to be a fairly nonviolent protest. If they really wanted to string up the rich there would have been some ample opportunity.[/quote]
You can find his testimony before congress where he talks about where the 50% tax comes from. It’s a combination of federal, state, property, etc. He is correct then and I think it is very telling that no one could give him a number at which they feel he should be taxed.
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
75 percent marginal tax on any income over 2 million how about that, capital gains or wages. You think he’d drop out of the economy and try not to earn to that level? Which seems to be the backside of his argument. People pick weird economic policy heroes.
Perhaps we should run the 9 9 9 and the free enterprise zones pushed by Cain?(This is the plan endorsed by your man here) They seem pretty strong. Certainly seems like a fair plan. I do like the part about the free enterprise zones in the inner cities it has a little je nais se quoi.[/quote]
Would never happen. If they taxed individuals this aggressively, imagine corporate tax.
Even if adjusted to allow revenue flow to support jobs that grant people an income to begin with, there would undoubtedly be some assassinations at hand.
In 2010, our GDP was estimated at $14.7 Trillion. Largely cultivated in private industry.
You try to steal $11 trillion dollars and see if you live.
Hell a lowly millionare with $2mil at risk of being cut to $500k would be able to contract a kill for less than his taxes would take from him.
Conjecture perhaps but totally realistic and likely.
[/quote]
Do you really want to hold that taxation is theft? I know you like to portray yourself a jovial fool, but this is moving away from simply playing the fool. Taxation is the cost of playing by the government’s rules.
If you want no taxation and no government the anarchists will meet you there. However assuming we agree that taxation is the acceptable cost of choosing the follow the rules of government then its not theft. You could remove yourself from being taxed after all if you chose.
On the other end why should a democratic society support a system if a majority feels it unjust? Obviously if we believe in democracy the masses should largely get the government they want even if it were to erode property rights and wealth accumulation. This is the crux of why people paint libertarians as fascists, because when push comes to shove they don’t hold that a democracy should be able to choose to redistribute wealth and property as it chooses.
75 percent was the marginal rate once upon a time. Corporations no matter what swill people want to feed anyone shouldn’t be treated as people especially not under the tax code. Corporate taxes should largely be lowered but made exemption free. This would help the myriad small corporations out there do business better while ensuring the mega corps pay their share.
[/quote]
Um, since when are we a mob rule democracy?
Last time I checked, our government was established only for the preservation of individual rights. Here in America, other places may be different.
I know some people seem to think taxes should pay for services for others, but that is not the case, In the U.S. taxes should only be levied to provide basic infrastructure.
Otherwise you are using violent force of the government to violate individual rights.
So in short, if you want the services and programs you pay for them, but no you cannot use the government o extort money from people to support your agenda. [/quote]
The only right to property is because the government allows you to hold it. There is no right by being born to hold property. Prior to that it was your own ability to use violence to hold it.
The entire point of a government is more or less using force to follow the will of those in power. Supposedly the people in the USA.
If a president were elected on the position of restoring a 75 percent marginal rate and the house and senate similarly filled with candidates backing this position, since its the will of the people the representatives should enact it in a representative democracy.
[/quote]
That’s all well and good, but the US is a CONSTITUTIONAL republic not a straight up representative democracy. The people and the government are NOT endowed with ultimate power. The US is specifically designed and set up to prevent the majority from being able to do what they want at the expense of others.
Learn some history.
I applaud Peter Schiff for making a fairly simple explanation that benefits these people. I also enjoyed people cajoling him while he remained composed.
Hypocricy “I will never argue with a fool”. That gentleman gave some good advice, too bad he didnt realize what a fool he was.
Groo, as far as taxation = the cost of playing by the rules of government analogy… so when the government decides to print a much bigger, nonsensical rulebook we should pay more? When the size and scope of that rulebook is influenced by lobbies we should pay more for their “brady tuck rules”? I see that as a logical disconnect.
Taxation is the amount you pay for the level of government you want in society, not its RULES. the difference lies in what the people want, not what government wants. The further complication is the obfuscation of costs when government gets involved. Malinvestment, because true costs are then masked to the consumer. A good example Schiff gave is the student loan industry. “waah waaah the price of college, i cant study mental masturbation at NYU and get a job after”, without realizing the price goes up as a result of the government backed student loans. That is a failure of transparency as well as tampering with the market. Should our taxes be used for that failing system?
[quote]666Rich wrote:
I applaud Peter Schiff for making a fairly simple explanation that benefits these people. I also enjoyed people cajoling him while he remained composed.
Hypocricy “I will never argue with a fool”. That gentleman gave some good advice, too bad he didnt realize what a fool he was.
Groo, as far as taxation = the cost of playing by the rules of government analogy… so when the government decides to print a much bigger, nonsensical rulebook we should pay more? When the size and scope of that rulebook is influenced by lobbies we should pay more for their “brady tuck rules”? I see that as a logical disconnect.
Taxation is the amount you pay for the level of government you want in society, not its RULES. the difference lies in what the people want, not what government wants. The further complication is the obfuscation of costs when government gets involved. Malinvestment, because true costs are then masked to the consumer. A good example Schiff gave is the student loan industry. “waah waaah the price of college, i cant study mental masturbation at NYU and get a job after”, without realizing the price goes up as a result of the government backed student loans. That is a failure of transparency as well as tampering with the market. Should our taxes be used for that failing system?[/quote]
Ideally in the US it would be the cost of the government the people want if its even possible to discern anymore.
The cost of education is high for a lot of reasons some of them regulatory more than student loans.
I think a lot of people would be surprised to learn when exactly income taxes started being collected (hint for those that don’t know: check the ratification of the 16th ammendment). So technically we’ve been without an income tax longer than we’ve had one in this country’s history.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
75 percent marginal tax on any income over 2 million how about that, capital gains or wages. You think he’d drop out of the economy and try not to earn to that level? Which seems to be the backside of his argument. People pick weird economic policy heroes.
Perhaps we should run the 9 9 9 and the free enterprise zones pushed by Cain?(This is the plan endorsed by your man here) They seem pretty strong. Certainly seems like a fair plan. I do like the part about the free enterprise zones in the inner cities it has a little je nais se quoi.[/quote]
Would never happen. If they taxed individuals this aggressively, imagine corporate tax.
Even if adjusted to allow revenue flow to support jobs that grant people an income to begin with, there would undoubtedly be some assassinations at hand.
In 2010, our GDP was estimated at $14.7 Trillion. Largely cultivated in private industry.
You try to steal $11 trillion dollars and see if you live.
Hell a lowly millionare with $2mil at risk of being cut to $500k would be able to contract a kill for less than his taxes would take from him.
Conjecture perhaps but totally realistic and likely.
[/quote]
Do you really want to hold that taxation is theft? I know you like to portray yourself a jovial fool, but this is moving away from simply playing the fool. Taxation is the cost of playing by the government’s rules.
If you want no taxation and no government the anarchists will meet you there. However assuming we agree that taxation is the acceptable cost of choosing the follow the rules of government then its not theft. You could remove yourself from being taxed after all if you chose.
On the other end why should a democratic society support a system if a majority feels it unjust? Obviously if we believe in democracy the masses should largely get the government they want even if it were to erode property rights and wealth accumulation. This is the crux of why people paint libertarians as fascists, because when push comes to shove they don’t hold that a democracy should be able to choose to redistribute wealth and property as it chooses.
75 percent was the marginal rate once upon a time. Corporations no matter what swill people want to feed anyone shouldn’t be treated as people especially not under the tax code. Corporate taxes should largely be lowered but made exemption free. This would help the myriad small corporations out there do business better while ensuring the mega corps pay their share.
[/quote]
Um, since when are we a mob rule democracy?
Last time I checked, our government was established only for the preservation of individual rights. Here in America, other places may be different.
I know some people seem to think taxes should pay for services for others, but that is not the case, In the U.S. taxes should only be levied to provide basic infrastructure.
Otherwise you are using violent force of the government to violate individual rights.
So in short, if you want the services and programs you pay for them, but no you cannot use the government o extort money from people to support your agenda. [/quote]
The only right to property is because the government allows you to hold it. There is no right by being born to hold property. Prior to that it was your own ability to use violence to hold it.
The entire point of a government is more or less using force to follow the will of those in power. Supposedly the people in the USA.
If a president were elected on the position of restoring a 75 percent marginal rate and the house and senate similarly filled with candidates backing this position, since its the will of the people the representatives should enact it in a representative democracy.
[/quote]
That’s all well and good, but the US is a CONSTITUTIONAL republic not a straight up representative democracy. The people and the government are NOT endowed with ultimate power. The US is specifically designed and set up to prevent the majority from being able to do what they want at the expense of others.
Learn some history.[/quote]
There is nothing about high marginal tax rates in the constitution so it would be fine to work for legislation for it.
The people are in fact endowed with the ultimate power perhaps its you that might want to bone up on some history, along with some economics…though I am not particularly sure why you should bother since you think no one knows anything definitively.