$14.5 B Tax Refunds Issued By "error"

Eorzea Time
 
 
 
Language: JP EN FR DE
Version 3.1
New Items
users online
Forum » Everything Else » Politics and Religion » $14.5 B tax refunds issued by "error"
$14.5 B tax refunds issued by "error"
First Page 2 3 ... 7 8 9 ... 12 13 14
 Bahamut.Alukat
Offline
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
user: Alukat
Posts: 377
By Bahamut.Alukat 2014-12-18 09:52:26
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Ramyrez said: »
Bahamut.Alukat said: »
capitalism is the operating system..... everything that costs money but doesn't bring profit has to be removed...... maybe you should be thinking about changing the OS ;)

I'm pretty sure I've been saying that. I've been trying to avoid using terms like "capitalism" and "socialism" though, because some people heard the word "socialist" and they flip the *** out because the Cold War mentality of "better dead than red" is still drilled into some unfortunate children, who have grown into today's unfortunate adults.

next someone is coming along with "better dead than red" simply respond with "better red than NAZI"......

and well, yeah, sadly many people have been totally brainwashed...
 Asura.Kingnobody
Bug Hunter
Offline
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2014-12-18 09:52:29
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Ramyrez said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
I will never argue against the need for healthcare spending, education, housing, and safety/security/defense spending.

Many people do. =(
Arguing about the level of spending isn't the same as arguing against the expense itself.

That's where liberals and conservatives get into arguments about. Liberals blame conservatives for eliminating the spending, which our argument is limiting, but not eliminating the expense. Conservatives blame liberals for increasing the spending for control and lack of payment, with no tangible benefits to the increased spending.

Ramyrez said: »
As I said. The way taxpayer money is spent -- and above that, the way the people who authorize its spending operate, though now we're crossing threads -- needs to be overhauled.
Which is basically the Tea Party's argument.
 Asura.Kingnobody
Bug Hunter
Offline
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2014-12-18 09:55:28
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Bahamut.Alukat said: »
Ramyrez said: »
Bahamut.Alukat said: »
capitalism is the operating system..... everything that costs money but doesn't bring profit has to be removed...... maybe you should be thinking about changing the OS ;)

I'm pretty sure I've been saying that. I've been trying to avoid using terms like "capitalism" and "socialism" though, because some people heard the word "socialist" and they flip the *** out because the Cold War mentality of "better dead than red" is still drilled into some unfortunate children, who have grown into today's unfortunate adults.

next someone is coming along with "better dead than red" simply respond with "better red than NAZI"......
Godwin's Law on Page 8, go figure.

Bahamut.Alukat said: »
capitalism is the operating system..... everything that costs money but doesn't bring profit has to be removed...... maybe you should be thinking about changing the OS ;)
Is there a system that is economically and socially better than capitalism?

Here's the kicker, I said and, not or.

Answer to us what system you think is both economically and socially better for the USA than capitalism, and give evidence to your statement.
 Ragnarok.Nausi
Offline
Server: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
user: Nausi
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2014-12-18 09:56:59
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Ramyrez said: »
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
Ramyrez said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
I will never argue against the need for healthcare spending, education, housing, and safety/security/defense spending.

Many people do. =(

Well look how poorly the money is spent. How much money does the department of education and education receive in general and were surrounded by people who lack the critical thinking skills to see past #handsupdontshoot. Is anyone really going to argue that if we all received the money set aside for our kids, we would be better capable of teachng our kids what they need to know?

Healthcare housing too, these are things we can do for ourselves outside of government doing hem for us.

Again, you too are focusing on how the money is spent. It's a seperate issue. The way money is spent needs overhauled, and I'm agreeing with that.

It's not a separate issue, the only purpose to take our money is to spend it on something. What else is the reason to tax?
By volkom 2014-12-18 09:59:25
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Ramyrez said: »
Bahamut.Alukat said: »
capitalism is the operating system..... everything that costs money but doesn't bring profit has to be removed...... maybe you should be thinking about changing the OS ;)

I'm pretty sure I've been saying that. I've been trying to avoid using terms like "capitalism" and "socialism" though, because some people heard the word "socialist" and they flip the *** out because the Cold War mentality of "better dead than red" is still drilled into some unfortunate children, who have grown into today's unfortunate adults.



i like this song /shrug
YouTube Video Placeholder
 
Offline
Posts:
By 2014-12-18 10:02:33
 Undelete | Link | Quote | Reply
 
Post deleted by User.
 Asura.Kingnobody
Bug Hunter
Offline
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2014-12-18 10:04:59
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
Ramyrez said: »
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
Ramyrez said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
I will never argue against the need for healthcare spending, education, housing, and safety/security/defense spending.

Many people do. =(

Well look how poorly the money is spent. How much money does the department of education and education receive in general and were surrounded by people who lack the critical thinking skills to see past #handsupdontshoot. Is anyone really going to argue that if we all received the money set aside for our kids, we would be better capable of teachng our kids what they need to know?

Healthcare housing too, these are things we can do for ourselves outside of government doing hem for us.

Again, you too are focusing on how the money is spent. It's a seperate issue. The way money is spent needs overhauled, and I'm agreeing with that.

It's not a separate issue, the only purpose to take our money is to spend it on something. What else is the reason to tax?
The only reason why we should pay federal income taxes is for defense.

Social Security taxes? Fine, as long as it is being taxed as it was originally intended to do so.

Medicare taxes? Questionable, especially now that we have Obamacare shoved down our throats.

But the federal government has only one thing to do that the individual states cannot do, and that's defense of the nation. Welfare is the state's responsibility. I shouldn't have to pay taxes so somebody in California who chooses not to work doesn't have to.

If California wants to maintain the level of welfare spending they have, then they should be fully responsible for that level of spending and force their citizens in paying more taxes for it.
 Bahamut.Alukat
Offline
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
user: Alukat
Posts: 377
By Bahamut.Alukat 2014-12-18 10:10:54
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Is there a system that is economically and socially better than capitalism?

Here's the kicker, I said and, not or.

Answer to us what system you think is both economically and socially better for the USA than capitalism, and give evidence to your statement.

well, you have to set priorities, what's more important? A good economy (that's just about statics and numbers, doesn't has much to do with people's life, except the negative effect a good economy has on people's life) or a good social/living standart (to offer people a good life, that has to do with people's life)?

or compromise, quiet a trade..... weaker economy but an higher standart of living..... if you want a stronger economy, you have to reduce the standart of living.

since you can't have both, decide which one is more important, make a decission......

BUT: it might be possible that a higher standart of living strenghtens the economy in the long run.
Like, good medical treatment, good nutrition, people having homes and are happy.... it can make the people more productiv.... also, people won't get ill/sick that much anymore, so you need to spend less money for health care.... and so on....

germany (social market economy - hybrid of capitalism and socialism) was quiet well pre 1995, then it has been changed to capitalism and now it is changing towards nationalsocialism (that's capitalism in it's final stage).....
 Asura.Kingnobody
Bug Hunter
Offline
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2014-12-18 10:11:34
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Caitsith.Shiroi said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Is there a system that is economically and socially better than capitalism?

Capitalism by itself doesn't work, most countries are moving toward a Capitalist/Socialist hybrid system, including the US.
Pure Capitalism doesn't work, because humans can't be trusted.

But every time we move towards Socialism, we actually hurt ourselves more by the lost economic benefits from socialistic reform. We already passed that happy medium of economic growth with social issues back in the 1950s, and the further away we move away from that medium, the more and faster economic losses we sustain.

Case in point: Student Loans Bubble we are currently in. Once this bubble pops, this will be worse than the economic recession we just experienced from the housing crisis, because the one entity that's already stretched thin as it is is personally guaranteeing these loans, and when the lenders default, the only solution is higher taxes, which creates less economic growth, and even more loss of federal taxes, which in turns creates more taxes and the death spiral continues and accelerates.

You think 2009-2010 was bad, that was just the preview of the upcoming disaster.
 Asura.Kingnobody
Bug Hunter
Offline
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2014-12-18 10:19:07
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Bahamut.Alukat said: »
well, you have to set priorities, what's more important? A good economy (that's just about statics and numbers, doesn't has much to do with people's life) or a good social standart (to offer people a good life, that has to do with people's life)?
Therein lies your flawed reasoning. A good economic standard leads and gives better social benefits for everyone, but not the other way around. More businesses leads to more wages which leads to more spending and more growth, creating a better life for all and not a few.

More restrictions on businesses due to socialistic idiocy leads to lower wages which leads to less spending and less growth, creating a worse life for all except a few.

If you don't believe me, then ask yourself this: What was life like in 2007 compared to today? Was there more business regulations then or now? How is the standard of life compared from then and now?

You will see that what I just said is true.

Bahamut.Alukat said: »
or compromise, quiet a trade..... weaker economy but an higher standart of living..... if you want a stronger economy, you have to reduce the standart of living.

since you can't have both, decide which one is more important, make a decission......
You can have both. A stronger economy means a stronger and better living standards for everyone. Compare the US to Spain now. Spain has a very weak economy, high unemployment, and no prospects of recovery. They went the "better socialistic" approach you are advocating. Can you say that their approach created a better standard of living than one that went a more capitalistic approach, like the US or Germany?

Bahamut.Alukat said: »
BUT: it might be possible that a higher standart of living strenghtens the economy in the long run.
It's the other way around. A better economy gives a higher standard of living.

Bahamut.Alukat said: »
germany (social market economy) was quiet well pre 2000, then it has been changed to capitalism and now it is changing towards nationalsocialism (that's capitalism in it's final stage).....
Yeah, obviously you have no clue as to what you are talking about. It's France who is changing to national socialism, not Germany.
Offline
Posts: 24505
By Ramyrez 2014-12-18 10:25:02
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
Ramyrez said: »
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
Ramyrez said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
I will never argue against the need for healthcare spending, education, housing, and safety/security/defense spending.

Many people do. =(

Well look how poorly the money is spent. How much money does the department of education and education receive in general and were surrounded by people who lack the critical thinking skills to see past #handsupdontshoot. Is anyone really going to argue that if we all received the money set aside for our kids, we would be better capable of teachng our kids what they need to know?

Healthcare housing too, these are things we can do for ourselves outside of government doing hem for us.

Again, you too are focusing on how the money is spent. It's a seperate issue. The way money is spent needs overhauled, and I'm agreeing with that.

It's not a separate issue, the only purpose to take our money is to spend it on something. What else is the reason to tax?

How can you not see that how taxes are collected and how they are spent are two seperate issues?

They need to be collected in a better fashion AND spent in a better fashion. But they're seperate issues, albeit related.
Offline
Posts: 24505
By Ramyrez 2014-12-18 10:29:29
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Which is basically the Tea Party's argument.

Except the Tea Part is firmly in the pocket of the Koch brothers, the grand poobahs of the"Rich White Christian Male" club. You really think they would dump tons of money into the tea party movement without it fulfilling what's in their best interest?
 Asura.Kingnobody
Bug Hunter
Offline
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2014-12-18 10:36:20
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Ramyrez said: »
They need to be collected in a better fashion AND spent in a better fashion. But they're seperate issues, albeit related.
As long as there isn't any more bonehead laws like Obamacare (that is more of a tax law and less than a healthcare law), the code is fine as it is, as it suits the needs of taxes collected along with the mob mentality of auditing "hidden bank accounts" and "unpaid income taxes from foreign sources" which was already collected and paid, but now it's clearer that they were collected and paid.

Ramyrez said: »
Except the Tea Part is firmly in the pocket of the Koch brothers, the grand poobahs of the"Rich White Christian Male" club. You really think they would dump tons of money into the tea party movement without it fulfilling what's in their best interest?
Right. I'm sure you will argue that anyone in politics is in the pocket of somebody else. Problem is, there is too many politicians who are doing exactly what they ran for office about and not doing shady deals all the time like you are indirectly insinuating...
Offline
Posts: 24505
By Ramyrez 2014-12-18 10:46:55
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Problem is, there is too many politicians who are doing exactly what they ran for office about and not doing shady deals all the time like you are indirectly insinuating...

I suspect their deals were done before they ran for office, and their platform was likely approved of in the first place by the people that contrited to their campaigns. :p


My final comment on the subject for now is a picture I've posted before and I'm sure I'll post again.

 Bahamut.Alukat
Offline
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
user: Alukat
Posts: 377
By Bahamut.Alukat 2014-12-18 10:50:08
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Therein lies your flawed reasoning.

Nope, high social/living standart is bad for economy, because companies have less money left to invest. The economy can't grow fast.

Asura.Kingnobody said: »
A good economic standard leads and gives better social benefits for everyone, but not the other way around. More businesses leads to more wages which leads to more spending and more growth, creating a better life for all and not a few.

that's the lie the capitalists are telling to the people for more than 50 years.... so tell me, is the life for all people better than 50 years ago? are there no more homeless people? does everyone get the best medical treatment? does everyone have a good income?

as it goes for germany.... the economy has constantly grown in the last 20 years... so has the amount of homeless people, the amount of people who can't efford food every day, the amount of people who are unable to pay their bills.... so what gives you the idea that a good economy (define it pls) will end in a better life for everyone?

Asura.Kingnobody said: »
More restrictions on businesses due to socialistic idiocy leads to lower wages which leads to less spending and less growth, creating a worse life for all except a few.

so if people are now working for 1$/hour and this socialistic "idiots" are making a law which declares a minimum wage of 10$/hour, how does this exactly decrease the wages? i guess we should rather talk about whom's wages will decrease (well i know the answer)....

Asura.Kingnobody said: »
If you don't believe me, then ask yourself this: What was life like in 2007 compared to today?

way better.

Asura.Kingnobody said: »
A stronger economy means a stronger and better living standards for everyone.

vice versa.
focusing on economics only will destroy the people.
germany is focusing on a strong economy for 10 years now.

here are the results:
- the living standart is lower than it was in 2000
- wages have decreased by up to 50%
- the amount of people working 2 or 3 jobs has risen
- millions of unpaid extra hours
- increased suicides (before going the full economic growth way it has always been declining, now it is constantly raising) from 8.5k in 2005 up to 11+k in 2013
- days ill due to burnout: from 10 days at 1000 employes in 2004 up to 98 days at 1000 employes in 2009 (+980%)
- the amount of people having depressions has increased by 25%
- 2 people murdered - jobcenter employes (3 if the women being shot by the police is being into account)

so it's evident that a strong economy doesn't lead to better living standarts, it's quiet the opposite (I bet you're going to denial, again)

Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Yeah, obviously you have no clue as to what you are talking about. It's France who is changing to national socialism, not Germany.

I live in Germany...... it's changing to national socialism..... in 2012 we had 1 million cases of people being tortured by law (crimes against humanity are very common since 2005)..... some weeks ago 15.000+ NAZIs started to march the streets every monday....
homes for/of immigrants have been burned.....
Seriously, you have no idea about the things that are going on here..... and where the "strong economy"-approach leads to..... (guess you'll be going into denial on this one too)
 Asura.Kingnobody
Bug Hunter
Offline
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2014-12-18 11:56:49
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Bahamut.Alukat said: »
crazy stuff
I'm sorry, but do you really have evidence that a stronger standard of living leads to a stronger economy without building the stronger economy first?

You can't honestly expect to have a better TV without knowing how you will pay for it first.

What you are advocating is a debt financed standard of living, and that is what caused the housing crisis of 2008-2009.
 Lakshmi.Sparthosx
Offline
Server: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
user: sparthosx
Posts: 10394
By Lakshmi.Sparthosx 2014-12-18 12:06:41
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Ramyrez said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Which is basically the Tea Party's argument.

Except the Tea Part is firmly in the pocket of the Koch brothers, the grand poobahs of the"Rich White Christian Male" club. You really think they would dump tons of money into the tea party movement without it fulfilling what's in their best interest?

The angry poor white guys are simply their pawns in an attempt to firmly weaken the government to the point of such incompetence that they and their corporate buddies can assume direct control via puppets. I use poor white guys only because that is the Tea Parties target demographic. Buying elections has become something trial run in our era and I can only fear for what happens once this seed sprouts into a full blown, overt oligarchy in a country of serfs.

The Koch plan is sold to the public as less government which makes sense if the smaller government weren't led by a bunch of idiots why don't understand basic anything. Economics? Science? Math? History? Geography? Nope. All carted aside of nationalist fervor as the jerbs are shipped overseas and the average 'Murican gets poorer.

Smaller government should mean a core group of intelligent people working for the people but instead it's just been rhetoric spouting morons who do what their masters tell them to. Lets talk about gay marriage instead of our crumbling infrastructure, stagnant wages and militaristic overreach across the globe.

Makes sense.
 Bahamut.Alukat
Offline
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
user: Alukat
Posts: 377
By Bahamut.Alukat 2014-12-18 12:08:02
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Bahamut.Alukat said: »
crazy stuff
I'm sorry, but do you really have evidence that a stronger standard of living leads to a stronger economy without building the stronger economy first?

well you aim for a higher living standart.... giving everyone an income increase of +10%, now they spend the money... the demand for goods increases, now the companies invest to expand their companies. They hire more people, buy more machines and so on. The economy is growing (that's what you mean by "stronger economy"? it would be helpfull if you define it). People's living standard increased and the economy has grown, giving a 10% income increase has given the impuls. And there are ways to pay the 10% income increase, either tax the rich or make new debts or increase the wages.

Asura.Kingnobody said: »
You can't honestly expect to have a better TV without knowing how you will pay for it first.

well, you got a 10% income increase, now you know how to pay it ;)

Asura.Kingnobody said: »
What you are advocating is a debt financed standard of living, and that is what caused the housing crisis of 2008-2009.

well, you know that all money is being created by debt? w/o debts there would be no money at all. major problem, like i've stated before.
Offline
Posts: 720
By Nazrious 2014-12-18 12:36:47
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Caitsith.Shiroi said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Is there a system that is economically and socially better than capitalism?

Capitalism by itself doesn't work, most countries are moving toward a Capitalist/Socialist hybrid system, including the US.

The US has been a social capilist system for decades, this is basically why today we are a Corporate Welfare country. Our socialist programs benefit corporations. This in turn taints the socialist programs and further lines the pocket of corporations. The two systems are counter-opposed and the way the US does it fails to take this into account.


As far as that guy KN is concerned you can argue with yourself mate, I already have disproven/invalidated/won our "debate" if you can call it that, from here on out your posts in this thread will simply be disregarded.
 Asura.Kingnobody
Bug Hunter
Offline
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2014-12-18 13:14:54
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Bahamut.Alukat said: »
well you aim for a higher living standart.... giving everyone an income increase of +10%, now they spend the money...
Where is that money going to come from? How does it exist? Did production increase from that? Will prices stay the same immediately after the forced income increase of 10%? How much real wages went up by?

Bahamut.Alukat said: »
The economy is growing (that's what you mean by "stronger economy"? it would be helpfull if you define it).
I'm sorry, I figured you had some sort of education. A stronger economy is real, not nominal, economic growth. Real economic growth is how much purchasing power one has, how much $1 of your income gives to you.

What you are advocating is nominal economic growth, which is what $1 is.

Bahamut.Alukat said: »
People's living standard increased and the economy has grown, giving a 10% income increase has given the impuls.
Did you actually increase your purchasing power, or did you just increase your nominal wages?

Bahamut.Alukat said: »
And there are ways to pay the 10% income increase, either tax the rich or make new debts or increase the wages.
1) Taxing the rich will prevent further production and investments from being realized. If you have $100 and have to pay taxes on $40, that means you have $60 left to buy stuff. Well, if you increase the taxes, that means you have less to buy stuff. How is that increasing production, and how is that expanding the economy?

2) How will you pay for those debts? If you borrow $10 to pay somebody else $10, and they produce nothing more, how are you going to pay the $10 back? How are you going to pay the interest if you have no money? You aren't earning anything more, you had to borrow $10 to pay it to somebody else, how in the world are you going to pay it back? And who's going to lend it to you if you have no way of paying it back?

3) You are saying that to solve a problem, you create the same problem again? How are increasing wages again a solution to paying the wage increases?

That quote above just shows how limited your knowledge is. How very limited your knowledge is to the economy. So limited that it is practically zero.

Bahamut.Alukat said: »
well, you got a 10% income increase, now you know how to pay it ;)
Let's put it this way: Today your pay is $100, and that TV costs $100. Your daily wage is worth one TV.

Now, tomorrow, you get a 10% increase in pay, but to counter it, that TV's price has to increase it's price by 10% to pay you the additional 10% wages. So, tomorrow your pay is $110, and that TV costs $110. Your daily wage is still worth one TV.

Did you really get a wage increase, or do you think you did?

Bahamut.Alukat said: »
well, you know that all money is being created by debt? w/o debts there would be no money at all. major problem, like i've stated before.
Another example of ignorance. Money is not created by debt. Debt is a transfer of money from one person to another.

Money is "created" by production. It is not created by transfers, it is created by taking a raw product, producing a tangible asset, and trading it for services or a medium commonly used in exchanges (cash).

Nazrious said: »
The US has been a social capilist system for decades, this is basically why today we are a Corporate Welfare country. Our socialist programs benefit corporations. This in turn taints the socialist programs and further lines the pocket of corporations. The two systems are counter-opposed and the way the US does it fails to take this into account.
There is so much wrong with this quote that it would be impossible to counter it without teaching Economics 101.

Nazrious said: »
As far as that guy KN is concerned you can argue with yourself mate, I already have disproven/invalidated/won our "debate" if you can call it that, from here on out your posts in this thread will simply be disregarded.
Where did you win again?

And you still haven't answered my question from earlier.

Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Let's start by seeing what you think capital gains are. Please tell us all what income are capital gains.
Offline
Posts: 24505
By Ramyrez 2014-12-18 13:36:43
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Now, tomorrow, you get a 10% increase in pay, but to counter it, that TV's price has to increase it's price by 10% to pay you the additional 10% wages. So, tomorrow your pay is $110, and that TV costs $110. Your daily wage is still worth one TV.



I'm tired of politics and finance today, and this put me in the mind of Oysters Rockefeller.
 Asura.Kingnobody
Bug Hunter
Offline
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2014-12-18 13:39:53
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Ramyrez said: »
I'm tired of politics and finance today
Oh, this is nowhere near finance. That's a whole different ballpark there bub.

Taxes are there own beast.
Offline
Posts: 24505
By Ramyrez 2014-12-18 13:41:54
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Ramyrez said: »
I'm tired of politics and finance today
Oh, this is nowhere near finance. That's a whole different ballpark there bub.

Taxes are there own beast.

YOU CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD WHAT I MEANT.

 Asura.Kingnobody
Bug Hunter
Offline
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2014-12-18 13:44:12
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Ramyrez said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Ramyrez said: »
I'm tired of politics and finance today
Oh, this is nowhere near finance. That's a whole different ballpark there bub.

Taxes are there own beast.

YOU CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD WHAT I MEANT.

Just poking fun.

Offline
Posts: 24505
By Ramyrez 2014-12-18 13:49:34
Link | Quote | Reply
 
"I'm hungry. Let's get a taco."

 Asura.Kingnobody
Bug Hunter
Offline
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2014-12-18 13:50:51
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Name that taco!

 Bahamut.Ravael
Offline
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
user: Ravael
Posts: 13617
By Bahamut.Ravael 2014-12-18 13:52:03
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Fred.
[+]
 Asura.Kingnobody
Bug Hunter
Offline
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2014-12-18 13:59:30
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Fred is yummy!

....now I'm starting to sound like Seha....
 Bahamut.Alukat
Offline
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
user: Alukat
Posts: 377
By Bahamut.Alukat 2014-12-18 14:31:47
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Where is that money going to come from? How does it exist?
already answered that questions.

Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Did production increase from that? Will prices stay the same immediately after the forced income increase of 10%? How much real wages went up by?

Companies have 4 options.

1. same production + "high" increasing of the price.
2. "high" increase of the production + keeping the price.
3. "mid" increase of the production + "low" increase of the price.
4. "low" increase of the production + "mid" increase of the price.

it depends on what the companies choose to do.

Asura.Kingnobody said: »
I'm sorry, I figured you had some sort of education. A stronger economy is real, not nominal, economic growth. Real economic growth is how much purchasing power one has, how much $1 of your income gives to you.

What you are advocating is nominal economic growth, which is what $1 is.

i have eduction, that's why i needed you determine what you are talking about.
economic growth/"strong" economic refers to the gross national income and that has nothing to do with the purchasing power.
so if you are talking about the purchasing power, call it purchasing power instead of using a wrong term.

Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Bahamut.Alukat said: »
People's living standard increased and the economy has grown, giving a 10% income increase has given the impuls.
Did you actually increase your purchasing power, or did you just increase your nominal wages?
depends on companies reaction (which of the 4 options has been choosen)

Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Bahamut.Alukat said: »
And there are ways to pay the 10% income increase, either tax the rich or make new debts or increase the wages.
1) Taxing the rich will prevent further production and investments from being realized. If you have $100 and have to pay taxes on $40, that means you have $60 left to buy stuff. Well, if you increase the taxes, that means you have less to buy stuff. How is that increasing production, and how is that expanding the economy?

that's what i stated some posts before. you have weight between further economic growth and increasing the life standard.

Asura.Kingnobody said: »
2) How will you pay for those debts? If you borrow $10 to pay somebody else $10, and they produce nothing more, how are you going to pay the $10 back? How are you going to pay the interest if you have no money? You aren't earning anything more, you had to borrow $10 to pay it to somebody else, how in the world are you going to pay it back? And who's going to lend it to you if you have no way of paying it back?


that someone else has the 10$ and will, hopefully, spend it and it will circle around untill it , hopefully, gets back to you, so you can pay your debt. That's what our actual economic system is based on.... hoping, praying and luck that everything works as it should be. that's why it always fails, that's why there are always crisises.

Asura.Kingnobody said: »
3) You are saying that to solve a problem, you create the same problem again? How are increasing wages again a solution to paying the wage increases?

it's math (since you have no clue about economics, i hope that you are at least able to math)......

example (i hope you know what it is and that i don't need to explain it to you):

unemployed person gets 500$ net
employed person gets 1000$ net

now you want to increase both incomes by 10%.

unemployed person gets 550$ net
employed person gets 1100$ net

now summarize it. 1100 + 550 = 1650. So the wage has to be 1650$ before taxes.

so when raised the wage from 1500$ before taxation to 1650$ before taxation, you've achieved a 10% net-income increase. To pay the additional 150$ the company will have to reduce their profit/bonuses for managers by 150$......

Asura.Kingnobody said: »
That quote above just shows how limited your knowledge is. How very limited your knowledge is to the economy. So limited that it is practically zero.

that's a typical phrase used by neoliberals, people who have no clue about math/economics and by people who have no arguments ^^

Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Bahamut.Alukat said: »
well, you got a 10% income increase, now you know how to pay it ;)
Let's put it this way: Today your pay is $100, and that TV costs $100. Your daily wage is worth one TV.

Now, tomorrow, you get a 10% increase in pay, but to counter it, that TV's price has to increase it's price by 10% to pay you the additional 10% wages. So, tomorrow your pay is $110, and that TV costs $110. Your daily wage is still worth one TV.

that happens when the companies choose option 1, but there are also 3 more options where this isn't happening ;)

Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Money is not created by debt.

lol, so you don't even know the basics of the currency system. Money is being created by the central banks giving a loan (paper/coins money) to private banks. the private banks have to have a minimal reserve of 3% of central bank money(paper or coins).
so with 3$ central bank money the private bank can turn them into 97$ of fiat money by balance sheet extension (giving a 100$ loan to costumers). As soon as you pay your 100$ debt, the balance sheet extension is being removed.
Even if the bank gives you 100$ loan, the bank has only 3$, the other 97$ is fiat money, created by balance sheet extension.

Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Money is "created" by production.

sadly, no, it isn't. But don't worry, most people think work creates money, but loans & debt is what creates money.
 Asura.Kingnobody
Bug Hunter
Offline
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2014-12-18 14:57:36
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Bahamut.Alukat said: »
already answered that questions.
Your answers are ludicrous at best, and that isn't a good thing....

Bahamut.Alukat said: »
Companies have 4 options.

1. same production + "high" increasing of the price.
2. "high" increase of the production + keeping the price.
3. "mid" increase of the production + "low" increase of the price.
4. "low" increase of the production + "mid" increase of the price.

it depends on what the companies choose to do.
When a forced increase in expenses, no increase in demand or supply, the only option available is #1. There is an economical term for that.

Tell you what, why don't you tell us what that term is, when you claim to have an education.

Bahamut.Alukat said: »
economic growth/"strong" economic refers to the gross national income and has nothing to do with the purchasing power.
Well, you claim to have an education, but then you follow up with statements like this that disproves your education, at least in regards to economics and business.

Oh, and a side note, a degree in Clown College isn't a sign of an education.

Bahamut.Alukat said: »
so if you are talking about the purchasing power, call it purchasing power instead of using a wrong term.
Real economic growth is purchasing power. Nominal economic growth is GDP. Bonus points if you know what the "D" stands for. Come on, you can do it!

Bahamut.Alukat said: »
that's what i stated some posts before. you have weight between further economic growth and increasing the life standard.
You still haven't proven that increased standard of living precedes a stronger economic growth. All you have shown is a theory that is so far removed from reality, it can't even be called fiction.

Bahamut.Alukat said: »
it's math......

example:

unemployed person gets 500$ net
employed person gets 1000$ net

now you want to increase both incomes by 10%.

unemployed person gets 550$ net
employed person gets 1100$ net

now summarize it. 1100 + 550 = 1650. So the wage has to be 1650$ before taxes.

now let's calculate the tax.

550/1650*100=33,33%

so when raised the wage from 1500$ before taxation to 1650$ before taxation, you've achieved a 10% net-income increase. To pay the additional 150$ the company will have to reduce their profit/bonuses for managers by 150$......
Thank you for proving that nothing has changed.

Both people in your example still has the exact same purchasing power, as your event did nothing to change the demand of purchasing products or the supply of said products. What you have created is...well, I already challenged you to figure it out above.

Purchasing power did not change, the prices will increase proportionally to the added expenses to the additional labor.

Also, side note: Since when does an unemployed person get a wage?

Bahamut.Alukat said: »
lol, so you don't even know the basics of the currency system. Money is being created by the central banks giving a loan (paper/coins money) to private banks. the private banks have to have a minimal reserve of 3% of central bank money(paper or coins).
so with 3$ central bank money the private bank can turn them into 97$ of fiat money by balance sheet extension (giving loans to costumers).
Even when you try to talk bank accounting, you get it wrong.

When a bank loans a person $100, that $100 does not disappear from the bank's records, it is recorded in an account called Accounts Receivable, which is the account that tracks how much the bank is owed by the person. During which time, the bank charges an interest rate (production of the loan) which is payable to the bank for the privilege of borrowing the money. When you return the $100 back to the bank, you also have to give the bank money for the privilege of borrowing the money, which is why you generally have to give $108 back for borrowing $100. That $8 is considered production for the money for selling it's services (loan) to a consumer. That is how money is created.

The debt ($100) stays at the same value as before, it is the production of the debt ($8, or the interest on the borrowing of the loan) that creates money.
First Page 2 3 ... 7 8 9 ... 12 13 14