AbeFM

iTrader: (3)

Sorry for dropping this for so long. I was working on my car - remember those? :-P

Ok, back to it, though I don't have a lot of time to dump it was was unfair of me just to drop things. As you said, this started out about the economy.


I guess I keep trying to understand them. This is kinda a point-slope thing from grade school. The concept of lowering taxes in general, lowering ALL tax dead even across the board by 50%, I can understand. And changing what is taxed and how it's taxed makes sense. But you can't answer one question with the other.

When you're going to say "taxing businesses is bad" don't follow up with "we'll cut spending and it'll be ok". Keep the AMOUNT of tax constant, and tell me why taxing gasoline is better than taxing corporations or income from investments. I understand you want to lower taxes, that's a simple point. What I don't understand is the justification for the redistribution of whatever taxes remain.

Basically, you need to explain to me how shifting the tax burden to the poorest segment helps everyone as a whole. If your claim is that this is not what's being proposed, then I want to understand how taxing goods somehow taxes those who save money because they have extra more than those who spend everything they have because they cannot afford to live if they do not.

Again, this is a point and not a slope. Spend more money here on the military doesn't sound like a way to save money. The discussion of weather we're better off fighting in foriegn countries or in our own a little while down the line is a discussion for another thread, as Loki said. But I don't see why we need to spend more money to cut government spending. You're talking about shifting spending, not spending less.

Oh, and Nukes don't deter non-military attacks from sources you can't identify or terrorists without a formal nation to attack.

Again, we could tax big businesses fairly, and then lower all taxes. But all I can say is that I have worked in big business, and definately been a party to spending money just to use it up, or throwing away expensively developed products on a whim time after time after time. I used to be in sales once upon a time as well, and yes it was definately industry that was wasting money on **** they didn't need, and the government labs which were trying to figure out how to save money.

Excuse me? Did you read what I wrote? I said the farmer can invest money in producing something, cattle, and pays employees who live in the town. How much of that money gets "invested locally"? Well, ALL of it. Like, locally as in AT HIS OWN FARM. A bank can do whatever the hell it wants. It's a nice fairy tale that they will invest it locally, and I'm not saying it couldn't happen. But producing produces more than not producing.


I think I asked very very specific question, time after time. Please show my my "knee jerk" reactions, or explain how buying a "foriegn made tv" entered into my scenario about a person deciding weather to raise cattle or not. I mentioned stained glass window, another item which would be made by a local artisan... The "knee jerk" reaction seems to be ignoring my question and throwing up a smoke screen to keep everyone from noticing that you completely failed to comment on the one question in this whole thread which shows any insight into economics in detail.

It does matter point by point. Because you seem to want to cut some taxes, and others are ok, and there's no reason to it. If you understand it well enough to put in your own words, please do so - I don't see how you're proposing to shift the tax burden in a helpful manner, one which would genuinely promote the economy. You just repeat "Spend less! Spend Less! Don't tax me!" without facing the realities of a real world government.

I never said anything about printing money. The question I asked was what to tax and what to stop taxing. If you tax something, you don't need to print money. If you don't, you have to print it or the government can't build all those bases and submarines you want.


If you can't condense it into something that at least makes a basic amount of sense in a few lines - at least MOTIVATE it might be plausible, then I'm really not going to waste my time reading 100 pages of someone's ranting. I saw your page with all the graphs of how the government is bigger now than before - but nothing that said how it was bad. It's assumed to be bad from the get go, then given that as a fact, he spent 15 pages telling me how terrible it was since we already know it to be true. That's bad logic.

Please answer the questions I've posted here and throughout this thread before tackling that "new" issue.


Loki has called this one. So far there's been no demonstration of any actual understanding of any point that you have made. Please explain where the tax money will come from, how shifting this around will help the economy, and how incentivising people to invest instead of to produce is a benefit. That is, if you value having any credibility at all. I really want to believe you can make a solid point here, and that you believe what you believe for some communicable reason.

Again, sorry for the delay, I've been quite swamped.